Notes: [1] The Gun Control Act (1968), 18 USC 923(a), requires anyone “engaged in the business” of manufacturing, importing or dealing in firearms to be licensed. New: Amnesty: Documents and ATF activities relevant to §207(b) and § 207(d) of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

This November 28, 2005, Memorandum by William J. Krouse (click to read it) is the most comprehensive and current legislative and policy analysis of issues arising from questions about the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). This 21-page Memorandum identifies areas for potential legislative action, and critically examines ATF's reasons for opposing the establishment of a new amnesty period to correct errors in the NFRTR. Siyaasat Serial Part 14 here. The amnesty period from November 2, 1968, to December 1, 1968, was authorized under § 207(b) of the National Firearms Act of 1968, which is also known as Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is sometimes confused with the amnesty provision at § 207(d), which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish future amnesty periods not to exceed 90 days each, upon publication of his intention to do so in the Federal Register. More than 40 years later, some people (including those in the firearms industry) continue to allege that ATF unfairly deprived gun owners of an opportunity to register their unregistered firearms by limiting the amnesty period to 30 days instead of the 90 days to which they were entitled under the law.

This is an unfortunate misconception and is legally incorrect, because the Congress only intended and provided for a 30-day amnesty period in 1968. These published regulations (click to read them) describe the 1968 amnesty and its implementation. § 479.101 Registration of firearms. (a) The Director shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession of or under the control of the United States. This registry shall be known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record and shall include: (1) Identification of the firearm as required by this part; (2) Date of registration; and (3) Identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm as required by this part. (b) Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes in the manner prescribed by this part. Each firearm transferred shall be registered to the transferee by the transferor in the manner prescribed by this part.

No firearm may be registered by a person unlawfully in possession of the firearm except during an amnesty period established under section 207 of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. (c) A person shown as possessing firearms by the records maintained by the Director pursuant to the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53) in force on October 31, 1968, shall be considered to have registered the firearms in his possession which are disclosed by that record as being in his possession on October 31, 1968.

(d) The National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record shall include firearms registered to the possessors thereof under the provisions of section 207 of the Gun Control Act of 1968. (e) A person possessing a firearm registered to him shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to any ATF officer upon request. (f) A firearm not identified as required by this part shall not be registered. Source: 36 FR 14256, Aug. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr.

15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF 48, 44 FR 55843, Sept. Under § 207(d) of the National Firearms Act of 1968 (Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968) the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to administrative establish unlimited numbers of future amnesty periods.

There is nothing in the legislative history of this provision to offer guidance as to Congressional intent regarding the conditions under which a future amnesty period or periods may be established. The provision in current law states: The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of this title. Source: United States Statutes at Large, Volume 82. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1969, page 1236. NOTE: Effective January 24, 2003, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, and renamed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

Duties of the Secretary of the Treasury regarding ATF functions were transferred to the Attorney General. Thus, under current law, the Attorney General is empowered to establish future amnesty periods under provisions of § 207(d). ATF allowed thousands of unregistered NFA firearms to be registered after the 1968 amnesty period expired, under terms of unpublished regulations, contrary to law. Because a copy of the regulations obtained via the FOIA process could not be legibly reproduced, they have been copied and were published on pages 19-20 of a 2001 Congressional hearing record (click to read them). In a 1998 report (click to read it), the Treasury Department Inspector General determined that 'The law provided that such amnesty periods could be granted 'after publication in the Federal Register of (the Secretary of the Treasury's) intention to do so.' ATF advised us that the Bureau never issued a notice in the Federal Register....

ATF Counsel advised our counsel that a temporary grace period was authorized as an inherent corollary of the statute. ATF, however, was unable to locate any documented support for its limited conferral of amnesty beyond the statutory period exclusive of the IRS Amnesty Guidelines' (pages 11-12). Importantly, the 'former section of the IRS manual entitled 'Amnesty Guidelines', dated April 16, 1969,' was issued after ATF issued (on January 1, 1969) published regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations stating that unregistered NFA firearms could only be registered during an amnesty period, in violation of ATF's own regulations. ATF created Form 4467, entitled 'Registration of Certain Firearms During November 1968,' as part of implementing the amnesty period that year. Under the National Firearms Act of 1968, better known as Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, the Congress established a 30-day amnesty period during which unregistered NFA firearms could be registered with immunity from prosecution; however, such immunity did not extend to making false statements.

Under the 1968 Act, the amnesty period was to go into effect on the day after the first day of the first month after the GCA was signed into law on October 22, 1968, by then-President Lyndon B. The amnesty period, consequently, was from November 2, 1968, to December 1, 1968. ATF had little time to prepare, publicize the amnesty period and the kinds of firearms required to be registered, and to distribute Form 4467. Consequently, the amnesty period expired before many people were aware it had existed, or that certain types of firearms had to be registered. ATF's ruling dated March 1, 1994, that certain shotguns were 'destructive devices' required these shotguns to be registered in the NFRTR.

This FOIA was filed to determine the legal basis for ATF registering unregistered NFA firearms under this ruling, since the NFA and ATF's own regulations prohibit the registration of any unregistered NFA firearm except during an amnesty period established under § 207(d) of the Gun Control Act of 1968. These regulations were first published in 26 C.F.R., Section 170.20, in January 1969, and remain in effect today. The 'registration period' for certain DD shotguns lasted from March 1, 1994, until ATF ended this arguably open-ended, undeclared amnesty period on May 1, 2001---which lasted 7 years and 2 months.

This equals 86 months, or 85 times longer than the one-time 30-day amnesty period of 1968. ATF took more than 2 years to respond to this FOIA.

This hard-to-obtain Memorandum was written in 1979 by the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice as part of an investigation into allegedly inaccurate NFRTR records. Addressed to then-Idaho Senator James A. McClure, it determined that if 'a particular individual or weapon is registered' in the NFRTR and ATF finds that its 'files are missing,' then 'the only solution would be to declare another amnesty period.' The Department of Justice distributed hundreds of copies of this Memorandum in 1996 as part of a package of documents sent to defendants nationwide as a result of the Busey videotape. The Memorandum is typically cited as 'Response to Senator McClure,' by Philip B. Heyman, Assistant Attorney General, and Lawrence Lippe, Chief, General Litigation & Legal Advice Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, dated November 29, 1979, bearing symbols LL:JJD:ajw, and is reproduced here in full.

Note that when the ATF was transferred to the Department of Justice, effective January 24, 2003, the Secretary of the Treasury's statutory authority under Section 207(d) of the Gun Control Act of 1968, to establish new future amnesty periods, was transferred to the Attorney General. Powis, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Enforcement in the Treasury Department responds to inquiries from Senator Dole in 1983 on S. 914, 'A bill to protect firearms owners' constitutional rights, civil liberties, and rights to privacy.' Senator Dole proposed allowing hold-harmless registration of unregistered NFA firearms or devices, as well as lifting the veil of secrecy regarding registration information. The language in the amendment is useful as discussions and debates about an amnesty period arise. Powis also stated that the 30-day amnesty period in 1968 had served its purpose, and thus unregistered NFA firearms could no longer be registered, contradicting the fact that ATF had registered thousands of NFA firearms after the 1968 amnesty period expired, as established in 1998 audits of the NFRTR by the Treasury Department Inspector General, and further documented by Eric M.

Larson in his 2001 Congressional statement. These 1982 hearings may be cited as 'The Federal Firearms Owner Protection Act.' Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 98th Congress, 1st Session, on S. 914, October 4, 1984.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984.

For ATF's legal analysis of NFA documents containing 'tax return' information, and the scope of information that may be released as well as withheld, click. This document may be cited as 'Memorandum from Marvin J. Dessler, Chief Counsel, to the ATF Director dated August 18, 1980, bearing symbols CC-28,778 RMT and numbered 22889.' ATF has been historically reluctant to make formal statements about its reasons to establish a new amnesty period that the Attorney General can administratively authorize under under § 207(d) of the National Firearms Act of 1968, which is also known as Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Most typically, ATF's explanation consists of a single sentence or two stating that establishing an amnesty would interfere with existing prosecutions. At a 2000 hearing, the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, requested ATF to provide the Subcommittee reasons why a new amnesty period could not be established.

ATF's reasons have been reproduced on pages 26-27 of the published hearing record (click to read them). This hearing record may be the most complete formal statement ATF has given as reasons it declines to establish a new amnesty period. The hearing also includes discussion of the amnesty issue.

It is well known that virtually all attorneys will advise their clients not to talk to the police, but it is rare to hear detailed, lengthy explanations why this is advisable by an attorney, and even rare to hear it from a police officer. In this taped video presentation, both a licensed attorney and a sworn police officer discuss why talking with the police isn't advisable, even for people who are wholly innocent of a crime which they may be suspected of committing. This video discusses how the police will seize upon a minor discrepancy or circumstancial fact unrelated to a crime, to ensnare an innocent person into a situation in which the police are able to create doubt of innocence. In these circumstances, the police are not your friend; they want to solve a crime. Anybody who has spent any time (for example) reading the hundreds of analyses of firearms cases by James Bardwell cannot help but be struck by the significant number of times that at the time ATF first approached the now-convicted defendant, the now-convicted defendant didn't have a legal problem.

What happened is that the now-convicted defendant couldn't keep his mouth shut and talked himself into a violation of the law. To view this instructive video, click. Federal District Court cases with a significant focus on the NFRTR, 2007 to present. An expert witness questioned the validity of NFRTR data for criminal prosecutions based on his review of publicly available Government documents, in United States vs. Larry Douglas Friesen, Case No. CR-08-41-L, 2008, United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The Jury voted 7-5 for acquittal on October 1, 2008, and the case is currently scheduled to be re-tried February 9, 2009.

The trial transcripts are in eight volumes, as follows (comments about selected portions of these transcripts are below). Volume I (click to read) Volume II (click to read) Volume III (click to read) Volume IV (click to read) Volume V (click to read) Volume VI (click to read) Volume VII (click to read) Volume VIII (click to read) This case is based on ATF's belief that Mr.

Freisen, a licensed criminal attorney, possessed two STEN Mark II machine guns--one that was legally registered to him, and another unregistered one to which Mr. Friesen applied the serial number of the STEN that was legally registered to him. ATF believes Mr. Friesen gave his legally registered STEN to a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, and applied the serial number of his registered STEN on the unregistered STEN so it would match his legal paperwork. The case revolves around the technical issue of whether the STEN which Mr. Friesen is charged with illegally possessing was manufactured by Charles Erb or not; ATF contends it was not; and Mr.

Friesen contends the STEN is the same one he originally bought in February 1996. The background of the case is summarized in Volume I, pages 15-28 (click to read it). The Government apparently never wanted this case to come to trial, as evidenced by dumping some 1,600 pages of Discovery material on the defense just 2 days before trial, about which Federal District Judge Tim Leonard made clear his displeasure. Judge Leonard also repeatedly questioned ATF's practice of producing documents exclusively for trial (which the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) characterized as 'copies, your Honor') rather than original business documents. This practice worked against ATF when defense counsel brought Dr.

Scheuren, a nationally and internationally recognized expert on statistics and administrative records, to testify about the validity of data from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). The reason is that Judge Leonard overrode the Government's objections that it had not been provided copies of documents and reports in advance for study, noting that it was the Government's turn to take that on the chin because of its conduct toward the defense. The result is that the AUSA was unprepared to deal with Dr. Scheuren's testimony.

The NFRTR was invoked in this case, in part, because ATF presented one Form 2 dated May 14, 1986, as the birth certificate for a STEN Mark II machine gun bearing serial number E683, manufactured by Charles Erb. In response to a Discovery motion by the defense, ATF also produced a Form 2 dated April 20, 1986, bearing identical serial numbers (click to see each of these Forms 2). During direct and cross-examination, NFRTR Custodian Denise Brown was unable to explain the differences between the Forms 2, but said she preferred to use the one dated May 14, 1986 (to read Custodian Brown's testimony, click for pages 30 to 77 of Volume I). Defense did not question Custodian Brown about the new NFRTR form entitled 'Firearms Inspection Worknote: NFA Inventory Discrepancies' (click here to read it), bearing the date 2006, was not introduced and discussed, and the current accuracy of the NFRTR was not established (e.g. 'Since you don't know, does anybody at ATF know how accurate and complete the NFRTR is? Who would that be?

How can we know these NFRTR certifications you are making are accurate? When was the last time the NFRTR was completed audited?' Even with redactions made during the FOIA process, the 'Worknote' discloses its objective to address discrepancies between the NFRTR and the records of Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOTs) during routine compliance inspections. Failure of the NFRTR Custodian to (for example) satisfactorily define the term 'discrepancy,' describe how data gathered in the 'Worknote' is routinely used, demonstrate an awareness of the procedures for correcting errors or discrepancies, and so forth, would diminish the credibility of the Government. Erb testified that ATF rejected the receivers he manufactured as noted on the Form 2 dated April 20, 1986, as incomplete, and that an ATF Inspector required additional work to be done to render them complete. The Form 2 dated May 14, 1986, has 'x' notations by each serial number that Mr. Erb testified were placed by the ATF Inspector (click to read Mr.

Erb's testimony on these points on pages 581 to 586 of Volume IV). The Government filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Scheuren as an expert witness, a motion that was overruled. Judge Leonard explained: '... Two things persuade me to allow the testimony and overrule the motion. One is, of course, the duplicate records of Exhibit 100, and then the government's record of the same firearms, which both appear -- I've never heard satisfactorily explained why there were two of those records.

Secondly, the other relationship to the issue over the accountability of the other guns that are on the government's chart. And thirdly, the issue, the fact that the government has relied almost exclusively on many of its exhibits which are records from the [NFRTR].'

To read Judge Leonard's remarks, click for pages 1011 and 1012 of Volume VI). Scheuren testified: 'I find the existing [NFRTR] records are quite useful in an exploratory setting, but they are not accurate enough by themselves to be used in a confirmatory way,' including 'for purposes of prosecution' (click to read his full testimony, on pages 1016 to 1042 of Volume 6). NFAOA readers note: To see copies of the audit Work Papers Dr.

Scheuren reviewed, see the 'Resources' page section entitled 'ATF and Treasury Department Inspector General investigations and audits of the NFRTR, and related issues' and the subsection entitled 'Unpublished audit work papers from 1998 Treasury Department Inspector General Reports on the NFRTR,' particularly Work Paper Bundles F and H. Several parts of Dr. Scheuren's testimony merit the detailed comments below. Scheuren testified that the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR could not be reliably determined from a 1998 audit report by the Treasury Department Inspector General, because 'What happened is the original 1998 report had an 18 percent and [ATF] looked at it and said it was too high. And that was based on a set of predetermined critical variables. And they [the Treasury Department Inspector General's auditors] went back in and change the critical variables that they were using based on the error rate they had in order to bring the error rate down to something under five percent.'

Scheuren further testified '... In fact, their reworking of the original 1998 data is data fishing. And you cannot make a statement about the reliability, the probability of your being right with that data fishing, that exercise.' Note bene to the attorneys who are reading this and tempted to lift it verbatim for their next case: Dr. Scheuren was referring to Discovery Sample data from Form 4467 (not the entire NFRTR, but the AUSA didn't know that because he hadn't been provided copies of the audit reports), and that was not discussed during his testimony. The lesson is there's no substitute for grunt work --- an attorney who lifted this exchange without doing anything else, and used it in a court case, would likely be made to look quite foolish by the AUSA, who has most certainly read this sentence, a consequence of ATF monitoring this Internet site. Worrying that ATF won't see this is like worrying that the Milky Way is going to go out.

Second, defense counsel failed to challenge the AUSA's contention, in both examination of Dr. Scheuren and in closing arguments, that the NFRTR data are just fine. In the case of Dr.

Scheuren, the AUSA asked him if he was aware there was such a statement in the June 2007 report by the Department of Justice Inspector General, to which Dr. Scheuren replied in the affirmative, and could not go beyond because he was not asked a question. Importantly, at closing, the AUSA made the following statement to the Jury, beginning with a quotation from the report: 'We did not find evidence that errors in the ATF records caused inappropriate seizure or criminal charges against NFA weapons owners or federal firearms licensees.' So this is much to do about nothing, the smoke and mirrors behind the case.

He says if you sponsor it it's okay, we have witnesses to sponsor it, and he says even their own report concludes there was never a problem at all, ever, ever, ever, with NFA documents.' (see page 1532, Volume VII; click to read it). The June 2007 report (click to read it) states, on page iii, '... We did not find evidence that individual weapons owners or federal firearms licensees had been sanctioned or criminally prosecuted because of errors in the [NFRTR] database... ' This statement is misleading (and may have unfortunately contributed to some Jurors voting to convict) because of the implications of page 31 of the 2007 report, where the Department of Justice Inspector General determined: 'If the NFA weapons owner [sic] can produce the registration paperwork, ATF assumes the error is in the NFRTR and fixes it in the database.'

The AUSA's statement is misleading because the 2007 report fails to address what happens when an individual has lost his or her copy of an NFA firearm registration document, and ATF has also lost its copy of the document. Are 'criminal charges against individuals or licensees' not made in any of these instances? Are no firearms seized and forfeited, or 'voluntarily abandoned' to ATF?

The 2007 report does not say. The AUSA sought to obtain 'confirmatory' information about the STEN in question, by asking if the transfers of the firearm could be verified at each stage, he would consider the NFRTR to be accurate for that particular firearm, and Dr. Scheuren replied in the affirmative. On redirect, defense counsel said '... Although you didn't come here to testify about this, if there is a break in the link, for example, one of these witnesses didn't testify, would that cause you a concern from a statistical standpoint? You're using the word 'statistic' in a casual way.

My answer is that if there was gap in the evidence, yes. If there was a chain of custody break, yes.' This exchange is useful because it underscores the AUSA's lack of understanding of the implications of Dr. Scheuren's testimony, and also from a technical standpoint on the use of the term 'statistic.' (There are several exchanges between Dr. Scheuren and the AUSA in Dr.

Scheuren's testimony that demonstrate the AUSA didn't understand what Dr. Scheuren was talking about.) The Friesen trial is also notable for what was omitted, given the NFRTR data upon which the Government relied. There are additional findings in the June 2007 report that could establish reasonable doubt about the validity of certifications produced for criminal prosecutions by the NFRTR Custodian.

The report states '... Continuing management and technical deficiencies contribute to inaccuracies in the NFRTR database. For example, NFA Branch staff do not process applications or enter data into the NFRTR in a consistent manner, which leads to errors in records... [and] [f]urther, the NFRTR's software programming is flawed and causes technical problems... [and] [t]he lack of consistence in procedures and the backlog in reconciling discrepancies, combined with the technical issues, result in errors in the records, reports, and queries produced from the NFRTR.'

Finally, the 2007 report states: 'These errors affect the NFRTR's reliability as a regulatory tool when it used during compliance inspections of federal firearms licensees.' How do these findings bear on the results of compliance inspections by ATF, including the one undergone by Mr. This is not a topic ATF would like to see explored by asking ATF employees questions under oath in Federal District Court, much less ATF managers who are responsible for managing, administering, and maintaining these records. Finally, it would seem appropriate for defense counsel in such cases to conduct vigorous Discovery, which would include requesting unredacted copies of the Work Papers for the June 2007 'review' of the NFRTR by the Department of Justice Inspector General.

Copies of these Work Papers may invalidate NFRTR certifications, through questioning along the lines identified and testified to by Dr. Defense attorneys seeking to invalidate the NFRTR should study United States vs. Dario Giambro, Criminal No.

07-41-P-S, United States District Court, District of Maine (2007). On March 13, 2008, Lou Dobbs -- the anchor and managing editor of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight -- reported on the conviction of David R. Olofson of Berlin, Wisconsin, for the illegal transfer of a machine gun. Dobbs reports, Mr. Olofson had lent an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to a person who was interested in joining the National Guard. While firing the rifle at a public gun range -- he had previously fired some 800 rounds through the rifle without any problems -- the gun malfunctioned, fired two rounds and then jammed.

Law enforcement officers at the range questioned the man, referred the case to ATF, and ATF charged Mr. Olofson with the illegal transfer of a machine gun; the Assistant United States Attorney argued that a 'malfunction' was no defense; and Mr. Olofson was convicted by a jury (click to view the report).

The following night, March 14, 2008, Mr. Dobbs further reported details of the Olofson case, noting that when ATF tested the AR-15, ATF reported that the AR-15 was not a machine gun; however, the ATF Special Agent in charge of the case requested that ATF re-test the AR-15 using ammunition with more sensitive primers, and after the AR-15 fired multiple rounds and jammed, ATF took the position that the AR-15 was a machine gun. Dobbs repeatedly expressed concerns that charging and convicting Mr. Olofson under these conditions was wrong, and that ATF had made a mistake in doing so (click to view the report). In an interview with Mr. Dobbs, firearms expert Len Savage, President, Historic Arms LLC of Franklin, Georgia, a expert witness in two recent federal prosecutions involving firearms, stated that the reason for this problem is that ATF has no firearms testing standards; that each firearms test is done individually; and that the lack of scientific testing standards is a serious problem.

Dobbs noted that proposed legislation under H.R. 1792 would require ATF to videotape all firearms tests, and showed a clip of ATF firearms examiner Michael J.

Cooney testing a rifle under similar conditions (that particular firearm had broken internal parts and had malfunctioned; defendant John Glover's conviction was ultimately dismissed with prejudice for that reason, following its exposure by Mr. Savage; click to read about the Glover case). The foregoing two reports are not the end of this story. Dobbs stated that future reports will feature interviews with or about ATF so that questions about why Mr. Olofson was targeted for prosecution inappropriately can be answered, as well as what the Congressional delegation from Wisconsin and the National Rifle Association has to say about the injustice perpetrated against Mr. Olofson, and how the problem of inappropriate prosecutions involving malfunctioning firearms can be corrected. The case of David R.

Olofson of Berlin, Wisconsin, who was convicted in Federal District Court in 2008 for illegally transferring a machine gun, is currently imprisoned and serving a 30-month sentence, has drawn national interest among both the NFA community and the larger community of firearms owners, particularly those who own semiautomatic AR-15s. In the interest of providing NFAOA readers public documents in this case, with sufficient comments as to inform the reader about the topics of the documents, the information below has been copied from TheHighroad.org, where Zedicus, Senior Member, posted it on July 5, 2008. This page will be updated as necessary.

Source: The below is copied from (visited July 9, 2008) Ok, this is the Cliff Notes Version of the 88 Page Topic on AR15.com concerning US v Olofson. Located here: Ok, Commonly Known Facts First. • Rifle (AR15) was Loaned to Kernaki • Rifle Doubled/Tripled twice at the range and Jammed after each • Police Confiscated the Rifle claiming it was a Machinegun • BATFE Raided David Olofson's Home after being notified by local PD. While the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a valuable tool for obtaining Government documents, it is often misunderstood. For example, the FOIA 'provides that a requestor may ask for records rather than information. This means that an agency is only required to look for an existing record or document in response to a FOIA request.

An agency is not obliged to create a new record to comply with a request. An agency is neither required to collect information it does not have, nor must an agency do research or analyze data for a requestor' (see page 7). On the other hand 'The Privacy Act applies to personal information maintained by agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Government. The executive branch includes cabinet departments, miliary departments, govenrment corporations, government controlled corporations, independent regulatory agencies, and other establishiments in the executive branch. Agencies subject to the Freedom of Information Act are also subject to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act does not generally apply to records maintained by State and local govenrments or private companies or organizations' (see page 22). Thus, to obtain records of personal information, requestors must use the Privacy Act.

There are various limitations on FOIA requests, but the 'Resources' page of the NFAOA web site consists of a large number of documents that were obtained from ATF via the FOIA mechanism, and having the information has benefited many people be contributing to the awareness of ATF's activities. This document may be cited as 'A Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 to Request Govenrment Records.' 106th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. Union Calendar No.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999.

This is an example letter that the current owner of an NFA firearm can use to request historical information, such as the date of original registration, about the firearm. To use to request historical information on an NFA firearm. Note that you must (1) have the FOIA inquiry letter (click for an example) notarized prior to sending, or (2) complete and enclose the Department of Justice Certification of Identity form (click for a copy) with the FOIA inquiry letter, or ATF will not process your FOIA request. ATF has developed an alternative procedure for FAXing such requests to the Disclosure Division; click to access a different letter than can be used as a model for the FOIA request. ATF has a FOIA link on its home page (); also, be sure to read the Department of Justice FOIA Reference Guide.

Some people have doubted the value of doing a FOIA on an NFA firearm, believing the information is too limited to be of any real consequence, historically or from the perspective of learning about the firearm. While the personal identifying information of previous registrants is 'tax return information' protected from disclosure, the results of a FOIA can and do serve as legitimate protection on establishing the provenance of an NFA firearm. It is becoming more evident, as the demand for quality machine guns continues to outpace the supply, that knowing exactly what gun one has is critical from many perspectives. From time to time, Bob 'Bubba' Naess of Black River Militaria, Cavendish, Vermont, posts information ib various boards about how valuable FOIA information can be in (for example) establishing Curio or Relic status for a machine gun. With his kind permission, NFAOA brings Mr. Naess' thoughts and many years of experience to its readers in his comments below. There is a wealth of information available from an FOIA search.

First is the date of registration, and ATF or other Form of the original registration, if the firearm is in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). For some FOIA requestors, that's the first thing they find out: there is no record of the original registration registered NFA item for which they have approved paperwork. Or they might find out there is no record of the serial number, again for a machine gun which they have correct, approved paperwork. The date of registration can confirm that the gun is Curio or Relic or an original factory machine gun. In combination with the date, the original registration type will reveal the circumstance under which the machine gun was originally registered. There are half a dozen or more ways it could have been registered between 1934 and prior to the end of the Amnesty of 1968 (which lasted from November 2 to December 1, 1968), some of which are very interesting.

It might reveal a date of registration that confirms that it is a WWII bringback machine gun, or it was registered during the time of the commercial DEWAT collector's frenzy of the middle 1950s, or even right after beer wars,? The original registration can reveal that the gun was registered after the end of the 1968 Amnesty, when the registrant believed the machine gun was a Curio or Relic or original factory machine gun, by the date of registration and form used to register the original machine gun, it is not a Curio or Relic.

This is not uncommon. Date and form can reveal that an alleged registered and reactivated DEWAT is in fact a machine gun that was mistakenly or deliberately falsified as a registered DEWAT, when in reality it was registered by Form 2 post 1968. Also, not uncommon. The original registration form might reveal that a remanufactured machine gun was registered by an individual on a Form 1, post 1968, rather than by a Class II manufacturer.

The original registration might reveal that the model of the machine gun is different from that listed on their current paperwork, or the caliber and other specifications. It might reveal that the machine gun is a completely different machine gun, which has been substituted for the machine gun orignally registered.

Or, everything might be correctly and exactly the same as the owner's current paperwork. A FOIA search can mean the difference between getting the full, legitmate value for a machine gun when it is offered for sale, or much less due to the compromised status of the machine gun as disclosed by the registration information in the NFRTR. A FOIA is valuable to confirm that a Curio or Relic machine gun is exactly that, which can make the difference between a sale and no sale. A FOIA, on occasion, has revealed that an allegedly fully transferable machine gun is actually a pre-May sales sample, or even a post-May sales sample. For a registered DEWAT, copies of subsequent transfers can reveal if the correct paper trail was was observed for reactivation.

Copies of subsequent transfers can also reveal if the machine gun was only owned by one or two people, or twenty. A history of a number of Form 5s might reveal that the machine gun has been repaired a number of times, or been in an estate, or in a Police Department inventory. FOIA is the only access that the private owner has to learn anything about the recorded history of the weapon and, scant as it may appear at the outset, there is a great deal that can be learned from a search, for better or worse. ATF Special Agents prepare for million dollar lawsuits nationwide, consider class actions. This document was first posted on the Internet by David T.

Hardy, in his blog Arms and the Law (see on September 30, 2007. Readers should understand that the author of article referred to in the document that Mr. Hardy posted ('ATF Under Seige,' by Erik Larson, published in Time magazine on July 24, 1995) is not the same Eric M. Larson who has encouraged ATF, via Congressional testimonies and statements from 1996 to 2001, to render the NFRTR accurate and complete. Hardy is a former attorney for the U.S.

Department of the Interior, and brings a D.C. Insider's perspective to the ATF situation. Hardy's blog entry states, and NFAOA quotes him exactly, as follows: Posted by David Hardy - 30 September 2007 09:49 AM I've received the (small, 134K) from someone in the know. It details ATF agents' complaints regarding how managers are conducting themselves.

Here are a few snippets: ' Field agents have attempted to challenge the un-ethical, and illegal actions of field managers through various means in recent years only to meet with retaliation so destructive it almost inevitably results in the challenges or allegations being withdrawn.' ' Fear of ATF leadership has replaced transparency. Lack of trust and the absence of good faith in trying to resolve these issues have caused a growing number of Agents to rely upon legal means to invoke the protections and seek redress. Record numbers of EEOC, OIG, OSC, whistleblower and internal grievances face the new management team. Requests for congressional intervention by Agents across the country.'

'The EEOC complaints over the last 2 years number in the hundreds. The overwhelming percentage of which contain allegations of retaliation. ' ' First impressions in the field are that Acting Director Michael Sullivan is a competent and professional leader who possesses the skill to lead the Bureau of ATF&E. However, he continues to act on filtered information from those who have created these problems.

These problems and those responsible must be dealt with before the Bureau can restore trust in it management team. With the appointment of Deputy Director Ronnie Carter and Assistant Director Billy Hoover, the signal was clear. The intent is/was to restore ethical and professional leadership to the Bureau. Perhaps the problems are too significant to place on the shoulders of 3 men, or maybe the Bureau is beyond repair. Either way, the complaints continue as does the retaliation, abuse of authority and the climbing number of EEOC, OSC, OIG and internal grievance complaints.' Having worked in the bureaucracy, I can see the comment about the incoming director. The guy on top may be good, but he knows only what his assistant directors tell him, and they know only what the guys below them tell them, etc., etc.

At each stage of this, information is filtered to remove bad news, protect your unit, protect your buddies, etc. If you send up info that makes your unit look bad -- that's gonna hurt you when your superior does your yearly evaluation, right? By the end of the filtration, the guy in charge hears nothing but 'Everything is being run perfectly, and there are no problems, and anyone who managed to get your ear about problems is a lying sack of offal.' Then of course they hunt down the guy who talked. He's not a team player.

He makes his bosses look bad. Jack him around, transfer him around, seek out excuses to give him a bad evaluation, maybe see if you can tag him with misconduct (hmmm.

Did he use his official car for a grocery run?). The greatest fear of mid-level is that the boss may get unfiltered information. At Interior I was a simple staffer. Even my secretary didn't work for me -- she reported, like me, to my boss. Yet one day we received written orders that if the Secretary of Interior called us to ask for data on a legal case, we were to refuse to talk to him and tell him to go thru channels. (The order was given, and stuck, because our ultimate boss had in fact better White House connection than the Secretary.

Our ultimate boss was a good guy, not a bureaucrat, so I'd wager the mid-level folks had gone to him with horror stories about the Sec. Becoming a loose cannon if he got real data, and sold him on the idea). District of Columbia v.

Heller -- Parker v. District of Columbia case on 2nd Amendment. This article by University of Tennessee College of Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds includes, on pages 347-50, discusses how the Supreme Court might rule on 2nd Amendment rights, given that 'the District's [of Columbia] laws effectively prohibited private ownership and use of firearms.' His assertion that a decision would be close -- 4 to 5 -- and hard to call, is unremarkable. Vastly more interesting is his brief aside on what the role of recent academic scholarship on the 2nd Amendment may have in influencing a decision.

The suggested citation for this article is: Reynolds, Glenn Harlan, 'Looking Ahead: October Term 2007'. Higgins, BATF director, testifies before Congress in 1984 about the criminal misuse and availability of machineguns and silencers. The BATF director clearly states that in the BATF's experience, legally registered NFA weapons are not used in crimes. These hearings may be cited as 'Armor Piercing Ammunition and the Criminal Misuse and Availablility of Machineguns and Silencers.' Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, on H.R.

641 and Related Bills, May 17, 24 and June 27, 1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986.

The underlying facts in the court case, United States vs. Eighteen Various Firearms, 148 F.R.D. 1993), are set forth in this unpublished ATF Memorandum to the File dated January 15, 1993, obtained by the Freedom of Information Act process. In 1969, CIA employee George Fassnacht sought to register unregistered NFA firearms under the 1968 amnesty provision, ATF agreed, then in 1971 refused to allow the registrations after the firearms were seized in a raid that was later found unconstitutional.

In 1993, ATF dropped its objections and allowed the firearms to be registered after years of litigation. 'We reached this conclusion,' ATF stated, 'only after months of researching every possible lead and finding only evidence that Mr. Fassnacht had satisfied the requirements for persons seeking to register NFA firearms after the November 1968 amnesty period [emphasis in original document].' Larson's document package, 'Congressional Concerns about the Accuracy and Completeness of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) have not been fully addressed by the Treasury Department Inspector General or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,' was compiled in January 2005. It is a collection of selected Congressional and other documents relevant to the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, including documentation of a followup audit initiated in 2002 by the Treasury Department Inspector General that was abandoned when ATF was transferred to the Department of Justice.

The 2002 audit was supposed to have determined whether ATF complied with recommendations for improving the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, as stated in the 1998 audit reports. To read a copy of the October 1998 audit report, click; to read a copy of the December 1998 audit report, click; to read a copy of Eric M.

Larson's unpublished critique of these audit reports, click. James Bardwell's now famous NFA FAQ on legal issues related to the NFA. ATF letter from Lewis P. Raden, Assistant Director (Enforcement Programs and Services), ATF, to Eric M. Larson dated August 24, 2004, bearing symbols CC-82,457 FE:TH, regarding procedures for transferring National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms after the owner of the firearm has died.

In a 1982 federal court case, ATF testified that firearms classified as AOWs must be given 'special and more lenient treatment' than machine guns and other types of NFA firearms or devices. In this detailed 1996 Congressional testimony, Eric M. Larson documents how the Congress repeatedly singled out certain AOWs for such treatment by reducing the $200 transfer tax to $1. The prohibitively high manufacturer, dealer and transfer taxes, the Congress found, work 'an injustice against those who need such low-powered, so-called small-game guns and against those who make or deal in them' and that these types of guns 'have legitimate uses' (79th Congress, 1st Session, H.R.

869, page 1). The $1 tax was applied to 12' and 15' barrel Marble's Game Getter Gun in 1938 (the 18' barrel model was administratively removed from purview of the NFA in 1939 because it was not deemed concealable), and extended to a single-barrel pistol with a barrel at least 12' in length such as the smooth bore H&R Handy-Gun in 1945. The transfer tax on all other AOWs was $200 until the Congress changed the transfer tax to $5 for all AOWs in 1960. Despite Congress' actions to lessen the restrictions on AOWs that were deemed to have 'legitimate uses,'with a single exception, no AOW that was commercially manufactured in the United States in 1934 was ever commercially manufactured here again.

The single exception---the Model 1921 Marble's Game Getter Gun---ceased production in 1942. It is an excellent case study of how firearms the Congress arguably did NOT intend to ban, wound up being essentially banned anyway. James Bardwell: NFA and other gun law and related info and cases. From 1994 to 2001, James O. Bardwell, Esq., gave unstintingly of his personal time --- arguably postponing a legal career, and cutting seriously into his ability to earn a normal living at a routine day job --- to assemble a vast collection of so-called 'ATF Determination Letters' or 'ATF Letter Rulings,' among other documents, so that members of the Class III community could try and find at least some reliable guidance on how ATF was and is interpreting the law. There are few people who were as indefatigable and selflessly dedicated to advancing the NFA community as an economic/business and collecting activity as Mr.

Bardwell, who often said he did all of this out of a genuine love of the hobby. Bardwell never charged any fee to access his Internet web site, which has been used by virtually every practicing NFA attorney, as well as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for copies of its own records, and literally countless NFA collectors and others who wanted information and guidance on basics as well as advanced legal issues. There is probably nobody in the Class III community who has had such a universally vast, lasting, constructive impact as Mr. Bardwell, his influence is still being felt today, and the information on his site is still in demand.

Shortly after Mr. Bardwell entered the private practice of law in Colorado in 2001 and discontinued his work on what has become known as the 'Bardwell NFA Law' site, he granted a permission for Daniel Brewster of South Elgin, Illinois, to post his work on TitleII.com. In the interest of assisting the Class III community, NFAOA is posting this link so readers will have access to this historic and valuable resource. The description of the Bardwell site posted on Title II.com is as follows, and quotes Mr. Brewster's introduction to it: 'Welcome to the James Bardwell NFA Site. This site,, is a mirror site of the James Bardwell site.

It is current as of January 17, 2002. I created this mirror site because of the tremendous value of the information contained within. I'm going to slowly change the format, layout, and indexing of this information over time, but all of the data will remain. Please direct questions and comments to danbrew@titleii.com. James has granted permission for the mirror site to exist.'

NFAOA urges readers to donate what they can to Mr. Brewster to help defray his costs of providing information to the NFA community, which includes providing current copies of virtually all ATF forms used by collectors, dealers and citizens. Forms for individuals include Form 1, Form 4, Form 5, Form 5320.20, and Certificate of Compliance. Forms used by dealers include Form 2, Form 3, Form 4, Form 5, Form 6, Form 6a, Form 9, Form 10, Form 11, Form 5300.38, Form 5330.4, Form 5300.42, and Form 5630-7. Following a tradition established by Mr. Bardwell, Mr. Brewster has always offered key services free of charge.

Legal discussions of NFA issues by James H. Jeffries III, Esq. This is the original version of the now-famous 'Institutional Perjury' article by James Jeffries, and is included here for purposes of historical reference.

Published versions are included elsewhere in this site, in the section entitled Legal and issues regarding the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, which states: The first and best legal analysis of Thomas Busey's remarks about the NFRTR, is by an attorney who learned of the tape's existence and then quickly filed a Freedom of Information Act request to keep the tape from being destroyed. The article, 'Institutional Perjury,' by James H. Jeffries III, was published in Voice for the Defense, Vol. 8, October 1996, pages 28-30, and later in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. PART 5: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1998, pages 40-42; click to read it. To read a copy of 'Institutional Perjury' published in the Congressional Record (Extensions of Remarks), Vol. 142, August 2, 1996, pages E1461-E1462, click Many federally licensed firearms dealers, federally licensed collectors of 'curio or relic' firearms, and private citizens who legally collect firearms without any type of federal license are unaware of their legal rights when confronted by federal law enforcement agencies. Coupled with this fact is the reality that federal law enforcement agents are in the business of determining and effecting cause for arrest and prosecution. Under the NFA, any violation is a serious felony offense that will subject a defendant to up to 10 years in federal prison, and a fine of up to $250,000, for each violation.

The notion that a private citizen is not required to speak to a federal law enforcement agent may run counter to the instincts of most people; however, federal law enforcement agents are trained to make criminal cases by evaluating facts and circumstances and as attorney Jeffriees points out, statements made by a defendant. One cannot read very many federal court cases involving NFA firearms and related issues, without being struck by the fact that at the time the now-convicted defendant was first approached by an ATF Special Agent, there really was no legal problem. The problem arose after the defendant started talking and managed to talk himself into one or more violations of law. It is an unfortunate reality that ATF often construes cases to be violations of law when, in fact, they are not; and it has long been established and legally sanctioned law enforcment practice to lie to a defendant as part of an interview or interrogation, to elicit information.

This classic article was written in 1994, and appears never to have gone out of (Internet) print. AR-15 drop-in autosears are still advertised for sale in publications such as Shotgun News, without any indication they are considered 'machine guns' under the NFA. In this article, James Jeffries discusses the legal hazards of buying and possessing drop-in autosears. Various types of autosears are discussed and pictured in Chapter 2 of the new ATF National Firearms Act Handbook, entitled 'What are 'Firearms' Under the NFA?'

This article discusses the privacy provisions of Title 26, United States Code, Section 6103, regarding 'tax return' information, a federal law that requires any information submitted by a taxpayer to file a tax return be kept strictly confidential. Transactions that involve the tax-paid transfer of an NFA firearm or device are covered by Section 6103. This article, undated but written in 1994, discusses the implications of ATF's seizure and forefeiture and ultimate destruction of an MP-40 machine gun bearing serial number 4212, that was once owned by Noel Napolilli of Fairbanks, Alaska, discussed and documented on this site in the section entitled Legal and issues regarding the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR. Jeffries discusses an 'unannounced' position taken by ATF that 'unless a foreign-made gun was imported as a dealers sample or was registered during the 1968 amnesty, it cannot be in the country legally unless it came in as a DEWATs (deactivated war trophy) and was subsequently 'REWATTED' on a Form 2.' But the heart of the article goes to the implications of ATF losing or destroying all of its NFRTR records on this MP-40, and the hazards that the loss of those records represents for all people who believe they are legally entitled to possess NFA firearms because they have ATF-issued-and-approved paperwork.

ATF or Department of Justice responses to letters from Members of Congress. In a letter dated October 21, 2005, the Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) advised Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) that 'In response to correspondence we have received expressing concerns over the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, the OIG plans to initiate a review of the ATF's management of the NFRTR in late 2005.' The letter repeats many of ATF's recent responses to questions about the NFRTR (and attributes them to ATF). But the letter also, the letter notably states that the OIG is 'also aware of extensive correspondence, beginning in 1998 and continuing through the present, [alleging inaccuracies in the NFRTR] between the concerned individuals and the ATF, United States Attorneys' Offices, and the Department of the Treasury OIG, as well as several Members of Congress.' The lesson to be drawn here is the importance of involving your Congressional representatives in expressing your concerns about the NFRTR.

It is obvious from this letter that the sustained objections to how ATF is conducting the public business have been heard, and will now be acted upon. For information of NFAOA readers, sent by an Arizona FFL/SOT, with redactions to the letters for privacy: 'Eight transfers from an estate cleared to me this week, all were coming in bound on Form 4's. I am a dealer in [Arizona]. I paid for the guns January 6, 2005. Paperwork was submitted promptly to BATFE. Guns went pending March 3, 2005.

I had contacted Ken Houchens mid-March regarding the transfers, he told me guns were pending. Re-emailed Houchens in mid-April when guns still had not cleared, Houchens never responded to the 2nd e mail. Examiner was Lucretia Fountain, multiple calls, she never returned calls or was at her desk until I called Friday June 3, 2005. Fountain told me guns were in the system but she could not find the forms. Enough was enough. I called Senator McCain (my state senator), and explained my situation.

The Senator's staff asked for me to write a letter explaining my problems. I hand delivered my letter/FFL/SOT on Monday June 6, 2005. I received a call today from the broker dealer, guns had cleared and paperwork arrived from ATF on Thursday June 9, 2005.

ATF also called the transferee and told her that '[Name deleted for privacy] must personally pick up the guns.' You were correct on Subguns, Senator's staff does get responses in 1 week or less.' Len Savage Court Testimonies, Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) Classification Letters and Related Issues. These BATFE manuals were obtained by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers through the Freedom of Information Act. As would be expected, the manuals are redacted in part to avoid divulging sensitive investigative techniques, however they are still an invaluable resource, especially to FFL holders. Most of the manuals are PDF files created by scanning a copy of the original, and therefore are graphical in nature and not textually searchable.

One exception is the 'Federal Firearms Regulation Reference Guide' which is a direct electronic PDF output and therefore is textually searchable. Since it contains many of the statutes that FFL holders and gun owners should be interested in, the ability to search for the occurrence of specific words or phrases is especially useful.

In a letter dated November 20, 2010, former Rep. Jim Lightfoot (R-Iowa) welcomed incoming freshmen to the House of Representatives (click about here] to read it), and urged them to support ATF oversight hearings. As a former Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, Committee on Appropriations, Rep. Lightfoot had responsibility for approving ATF's budget and gained insights into ATF operations. At one Subcommittee hearing in 1996, Rep. Lightfoot heard testimony about issues regarding ATF's classifications of certain AOWs as Curio & Relic firearms (click about here] to read it); it was the first detailed testimony before the Congress about any NFA Curios & Relic firearms since the NFA was amended under Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective November 1, 1968. In his November 20, 2010, letter, Rep.

Lightfoot urged incoming freshman members: '[G]overnment agencies all suffer from the 'Blackbird Syndrome.' That's where several hundred Blackbired as sitting on a telephone wire and then suddenly one of them takes off. No one knows where that one bird is headed but the entire flock takes off behind him. Agencies work the same way. They watch each other like a Hawk (Blackbird). Pick one or two agencies for the 'Mr.

Clean' treatment. Go after them in high profile. You will be surprised how many other agencies will start to clean up their acts.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) would be a good place to start. It is one of the smaller agencies, therefore completing the audits and investigations will take less time. It is an agency that has drifted for nearly 6 years without a permanent Director. ATF was recently featured on CNN regarding an agent who blew the whistle on an illegal wiretap and was rewarded wtih exile to an office with nothing to do for two years.

One of their Special Agents in Charge (SAC) was found by a local reporter to be driving a brand new Cadillas with all the bells and whistles plus a police package. His punishment was to move him to DC Headquarters with a promotion. Check the millions of dollars paid out in settlements to employees as well as the huge backlog of employee complaints being ignored.

Compare this to other larger agencies and you will be shocked at the level of abuse and waste. Bottom line, it is your responsibility and obligation to make these agencies accoutable to yoy and, by extension through yu, to me the taxpayer.

Demanding accountability is where you can make the biggest difference in the shortest amount of time. It hasn't been done for years. Focus and cut, change Washington not the other way around.'

Lightfoot has other advice -- 'Just because an agency head is sitting across from you in a hearing room do not assume he/she is always telling the truth. As Ronald Reagan once said, 'trust, but verify.'

' In a September 22, 2005, letter, Representative John Boozman (R-Arkansas) requested DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine to investigate and tell him 'which documents ATF currently recognizes as entitling World War II veterans, and/or their lawful heirs, to legally possess War Trophy Firearms, and to legally possess DEWATs. Boozman made this request as Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, House Committee on Veterans Affairs. This investigation may establish sufficient legislative history to enable Congressional findings necessary to enact H.R.

2088 (click ), which would allow certain Veterans, and their lawful heirs, to register certain firearms in the NFRTR. For a copy of the ATF letter that contributed to Rep. Boozman's concerns, click ().

In sharing this letter with Congressional representatives and others, please consider the value of supporting H.R. 2088 as well as Rep.

Boozman's investigative request---there is a time and place for unrelated NFA concerns. Now is the time to focus on some badly needed legal reforms of the NFA and the NFRTR that can be done if people will work together, united, in focused and politely constant and consistent ways. WE CAN DO THIS!!! ATF's recent use of identical evidence to determine that a DEWAT wasn't registered, and then that it was, and related problems, impelled Ken Crane to ask Senator Arlen Specter to request the Department of Justice Inspector General to audit the NFRTR. Crane also cited Eric M. Larson's letter to Senator Paul S.

Sarbanes, and Senator Sarbanes' response via a letter to the Department of Justice (both letters are also listed in this section). On March 18, 2005, Senator Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Maryland) wrote to the Department of Justice, urging 'a careful review' of documented concerns 'about the completeness and accuracy of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record,' in response to Eric M. Larson's letter to him dated February 14, 2005. IMPORTANT NOTE: Sen. Sarbanes is a co-sponsor of S. 645, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005, introduced March 16, 2005.

It is heartening to see that an anti-gun Democrat like Sen. Sarbanes is open-minded enough to look beyond partisanship and politics and in effect insist on 'good government,' which is the real issue here. The NFRTR problems are not 'gun control' issues per se, but issues of good government, fair government, and legally principled federal law enforcement. Many if not most politicans refuse to become involved or quoted on any NFA or NFRTR issues---it is a testament to how well our political system can work if we involve our Congressional representatives. Sarbanes to be the first Member of the United States Senate to raise the NFRTR problems with the Department of Justice, is a high ethical and legal honor. War Trophy firearms, DEWATs, and related issues.

These are military regulations for the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force on War Trophies and War Trophy firearms. Under these regulations, no National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms may be retained; this prohibition went into effect during the 1950s, and was first applied to machine guns under War Department Circular 155, effective May 28, 1945.

This article, discusses the definitions of captured enemy property, booty of war, seized or requisitioned enemy equipment, and disposition of captured enemy property. While it does not refer specifically to War Trophy firearms brought or sent back to the United States by soldiers, portions of the article are reflected in the various issues of War Department Circular publications that constituted military orders for defining and bringing or shipping War Trophy firearms to the United States. This article may be cited as 'Captured Enemy Property: Booty of War and Seized Enemy Property,' by William Gerald Downey, Jr., American Journal of International Law, Vol. 44 (1950), pages 488-504. In December 2008, Eric M. Larson obtained copies of War Trophy firearm records stored at National Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

These records are important for research and historical purposes because they reliably document many regulations, orders, and correspondence involving War Trophy firearms that were created by the Department of War, covering the period from 1934 to 1950. Unfortunately, the records at National Archives II do not include copies of Certificates used to authorize soldiers to bring or send firearms back to the United States; however, the records include what appear to be a complete set of the War Department Circulars in which regulations involving War Trophy firearms were published, as well as ancillary paperwork that discusses reasons for changes in War Trophy regulations in the Circulars. The documents copied from each box are summarized below, but it is recommended that researchers review Mr. Larson's notes (click to read them) to better understand how and why he identified the documents posted here, how to locate them at National Archives II, and how they are indexed there. Record Group 165, Box 208 (8 pages, click to read) Memorandum for Colonel Pasco from A.D. Surles, Major General, U.S.A, Director, Bureau of Public Relations, War Department, 22 August 1945 Undated press release for TIME Magazine on Marlene Dietrich and War Trophy firearms Memorandum on amending War Department Circular 155 by William A. Walker, Colonel, GSC, Deputy Chief, Current Group, OPD, 3 August 1945 Memorandum on amending War Department Circular 155, by Thomas North, Brigadier General, GSC, Chief, Current Group, OPD, 29 July 1945 Record Group 165, Box 307 (13 pages, click to read) Memorandum for the Secretary, General Staff, on War Trophies, by Harry H.

Mole, Colonel, GSC, Deputy Director of Intelligence, 31 May 1946 Memorandum on maintaining War Department Circular 107, by W. Paul, Major General, GSC, Director of Personnel & Administration, 5 September 1946 Summary of regulations on War Trophy firearms, by J. Roamer, Colonel, GSC, Director of Intelligence, 27 May 1946 Letter to the Secretary of the Navy on War Trophy firearms, by Robert B.

Patterson, Secretary of War, 12 June 1946 Incorrect Classification Sheet, War Department Circular 155, 16 October 1945 Memorandum on disposition of War Trophy firearms, by R. Maxwell, Major General, GSC, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4, 2 March 1946 Letter to Senator Chan Gurney on disposition of War Trophy firearms, by Robert B. Patterson, Secretary of War, 15 February 1946 Record Group 407, Box 2967 (56 pages, click to read) Cover sheet for files on 'War Trophies, WD Cir.

VI, 1945' Indexing and filing sheet for War Department Circulars involving War Trophy firearms Memorandum for the Adjutant General on revision of Cricular 353, by J. Roamer, Colonel, GSC, Director of Intelligence, 23 May 1945 War Department Circular 133, 28 May 1945 Memorandum for the Adjutant General on revision of Circular 353, by J. Roamer, Colonel, GSC, Director of Intelligence, 29 August 1945 War Department Circular No. 267, 5 September 1945 Memorandum for the Adjutant General on revision of Circular 155, by J. Roamer, Colonel, GSC, Director of Intelligence, 16 October 1945 War Department Circular No. 320, 19 October 1945 Memorandum for the Adjutant General on revision of Circular 155, by J. Om Mahaprana Deepam Lyrics Free Download.

Roamer, Colonel, GSC, Director of Intelligence, 26 February 1946 Comment on revisions to Circular 155 and Circular 267, by Earl S. Hoag, Brigadier General, GSC, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, G-4, 15 March 1946 Comment on revisions to Circular 155 and Circular 267, by Peter C. Hains, 3rd, Colonel, GSC, Chief, Projects Branch, 2 April 1946 War Department Circular No. 107, 12 April 1946 War Department Circular No. 122, 27 April 1946 Comment on amending Circular 107, by Edward F. Witsell, Maj. Gen., The Adjutant General, 29 April 1947 Comments on amending Circular 107, by Alton C.

Miller, Col., CMP, Chief, Provost Division, 11 April 1947 Comments on amending Circular 107, by Geo. Price, Colonel, GSC, Chief, Military Personnel Service Group, Personnel & Administrative Division, WDGS, 28 March 1947 Comments on amending Circular 107, Edward F. Witsell, Major General, The Adjutant General, 10 September 1947 Comments on amending Circular 107, by LeR. Lites, Lieutenant General, GSC, Director of Service, Supply and Procurement and K.

McCrimmon, Lt. Colonel, GAS, Service, Supply & Procurement Division, 15 September 1947 Memorandum for Record on Expiration of Section IV, WE Circular 107, 10 September 1947 War Department Circular No. 5, 23 September 1947 Memorandum (?) on updating Circular 107, by Cheney L. Bertholf, Colonel, AGD, Chief, Operations Branch, AGO, 2 November 1948 Order extending Circular 107 to 1 May 1950, by Omar N.

Bradley, Chief of Staff, United States Army, 19 October 1948 Partial documentation discussing Circular 107, dated November 1948 Letter to Colonel Strecker from John W. Keys, Mineral Springs, Arkansas, 28 July 1945, regarding a confiscated machine gun Letter to John W. Keyes from W. Strecker, Colonel, GSC, Chief, Technical Intelligence Branch, Intelligence Division, regarding the confiscated machine gun, 4 August 1945 Letter to Senator J. Fulbright from Wilton B.

Persons, Major General, GSC, Chief, Legislative and Liaison Division, offering a replacement machine gun to Mr. Keys, 24 August 1945 Memorandum to the Adjutant General on an apparent violation of Circular 155 involving War Trophy firearms, by Wm. Pearson, Colonel, General Staff Corps, Liaison, 29 November 1945 Memorandum to War Department Liaison Officer regarding War Trophy firearms shipped to the United States by Herman H.

Goldstein, by Edward F. Witsell, Major General, Acting The Adjutant General, 6 December 1945 Letter to Major General Edward T. Witsell, The Adjutant General, regarding Japanese swords as War Trophies, by James E.

Armstrong, Secretary, Committee on Interstate Commerce, United States Senate, 16 November 1945 Letter to Senator Homer E. Capehart regarding War Trophy firearms, by H. Gilbert, Major General, Acting The Adjutant General, 21 November 1945 Letter to Senator Walter F. George regarding War Trophy firearms, by William K. Inman, Captain, Hq.

4th Armored Division, APO 254, 21 September 1945 Memorandum for War Department Liaison Officer on 'Permission for Servicemen to Retain Captured Weapons,' by Edward F. Witsell, Major General, Acting The Adjutant General, 18 October 1945 Communication from Secretary of State to the Secretary of War, regarding 'the possibility of German pistols or machine guns' being brought into the United States by merchant seamen, 31 August 1945 Letter to American Embassy, Paris, France, regarding firearms brought to the United States by merchant seamen, by Clara Colford Doreau, undated Letter to Secretary of State regarding German pistols or machine guns being brought to the United States by merchant seamen and others, by Henry L.

Stimson, Secretary of War, 13 September 1945 Memorandum for the Deputy Chief of Staff regarding War Trophy firearms being retained by civilians who served with the United States Army overseas, by LeR. Lutes, Lieutentant General, USA, Commanding, 1 August 1945 Letter to Senator Guy Cordon regarding War Trophy firearms, by John W. Martyn, Administrative Assistant to Colonel J. Roamer, Director of Intelligence, ASF, Room 3E 584, Pentagon, 7 May 1945 Index sheet for revision of Circular 353 Letter/Memorandum (?) from Headquarters, Mediterranean Theater of Operations, United States Army, on War Trophy firearms acquired under Circular 3535, by C. Christenberry, Colonel, AGD, Adjutant General, 4 March 1945 Record Group 407, Box 2968 (20 pages, click to read) War Department Circular No. 217, 1 June 1944 War Department Circular No.

353, 31 August 1944 Summary for record on revision of Circular 353, by F. Helleman, Major General, GSC, Director of Supply, ASF, 12 April 1945, 21 April 1945 Comments on revisions of Circular 353, by I. Edwards, Major General, GSC, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, 21 April 1945 Memorandum (?) discussing civilians being allowed to retain War Trophy firearms, order of the Secretary of War, 5 October 1943 Memorandum by the Secretary of War on 'Retention of Captured Materiel Trophies by Military Personnel,' 19 July 1943 These approved certificates for War Trophy items declared under Circular 353 and Circular 155, accompanied by Bureau of Customs declaration forms, illustrate yet another aspect of how War Trophy firearms were brought or sent back to the United States by soldiers. Note that the 'Certificate of Retention and Customs Declaration' and the 'Individual Certificate, Affidavites [sic], and Customs Declaration' (the latter has '(APPENDIX 0)' printed in the bottom center of the document and does not appear in this scan) incorporate language stating that the 'Theater Commander' has authorized the bearer to import the listed items into the United States. It is unclear whether ATF would regard such declarations as acceptable substitutes for Form 6; however, it would be difficult to argue that firearms imported under the authority of such certifications had not been legally imported. It is possible that further research will disclose further details of how War Trophy firearms were sent or brought back to the United States by soldiers, under military and other laws and regulations in effect during the World War II era.

This example of an approved Form 6, authorizing the importation of an inoperable MP-40 machine gun by an individual, is instructive because it is also an example of the version of Form 6 that became effective in August 1940, and thus was in use during World War II. ATF regards an approved Form 6 as a legitimate registration document for an NFA firearm. Form 6 may or may not have been used in conjunction with machine guns or other NFA firearms that were brought or sent back to the United States by soldiers under provisions of War Department Circulars, in particular No. 217 (effective June 1, 1944) and No. 353 (effective August 31, 1944). 155, effective May 28, 1945, prohibited soldiers from bringing or sending machine guns back to the United States. According to these circulars, Bureau of Customs officials collected approved certificates that authorized the bearer to bring or send machine guns back to the United States; it is unclear whether these approved certificates were accepted in lieu of Form 6 or not.

At least one MP-40 machine gun that was identified in a certificate under Circular No. 353, described elsewhere in this section, was determined by ATF in 2007 to be a registered NFA firearm, indicating that it had been imported and accepted for registration by some means presumed lawful.

It appears that the first military regulation involving War Trophy firearms during World War II may be 'Memorandum No. W570-3-43, 22 July 1943, subject Retention of Captured Material Trophies by Military Personnel,' which is referred to in and rescinded by Circular No. These approved certificates for War Trophy items other than firearms, two of which were under Circular 217 (effective June 1, 1944), and four of which were under Circular 353 (which superceded Circular 217 effective August 31, 1944), were issued to the same soldier who brought back two German MP-40 machine guns under Circular 353, described elsewhere. These certificates are instructive because all of them were issued and approved after the Circulars under which they were issued had been superceded, and because they give a flavor of the atmosphere under which War Trophies were sent or brought back to the United States. Click to read a copy of War Department Circular 353; and click to read a copy of War Department Circular 217, both copied at National Archives II, College Park, Maryland, located in Record Group 407, Box 2968. Various War Department Circulars issued during and after World War II were used to implement regulations on bringing or sending War Trophy firearms back to the United States.

The provisions of Section III of Circular No. 353, effective August 31, 1944, did not prohibit soldiers from bringing or sending machine guns back to the United States. This certificate, approved June 27, 1945, authorized the bearer to bring back two MP-40 German machine guns, and had to be 'signed by his superior officer, stating that the bearer is officially authorized by the theater commander, under the provisions of this circular, to retain as his personal property the articles listed on the certificate.' This certificate is of historical interest, in part, because it (1) approved the bringing back of machine guns after Section III of Circular No. 353 was superceded by Section VI of Circular 155, effective May 28, 1945, which prohibited bringing or sending back automatic weapons, and (2) the heir who inherited these MP-40 machine guns contacted ATF in 2007 to arrange for their lawful transfer, and ATF was able to locate a registration for only one of the machine guns.

It would seem illogical for the solider to have registered one of the MP-40s, but not the other. Did ATF lose or destroy the registration document for the other MP-40? This soldier had brought back various War Trophies that were not firearms, and appeared diligent in following regulations in six additional approved certificates, two of which were under Circular 217 (effective June 1, 1944), and four of which were under Circular 353 (which superceded Circular 217 effective August 31, 1944).

Because (3) Section 3(b)(3) of Circular 155, Section IV(3)(B)(3), effective May 28, 1945, prohibited 'Firearms of the automatic type (or component parts) such as machine guns, submachine guns, or any type gun in which a number of shots or bullets may be discharged with one continuous pull of the trigger,' an argument could be made that this bringback under Circular 353 on June 27, 1945, was in violation of existing regulations. It is difficult to know what to make of this approved certificate, in light of the prohibition then in effect on including machine guns as War Trophy firearms. Did the authorizing official know about the provisions of Circular 155, or just not care? It is probably impossible to know, but the use of an outdated Certificate would tend to support a belief that the authorizing official did not know about Circular 155. Circular 353 states that in the case of soldiers returning with War Trophy items: 'The signed duplicate certificate will be taken up by the Customs Bureau; the original will be retained by the bearer.' Did Customs officials allow an importation in violation of regulations? There is no reliable way to know.

Click to read a copy of War Department Circular 353, copied at National Archives II, College Park, Maryland, located in Record Group 407, Box 2968. This short article (click to read it) is based on documents from the George C.

Marshall Papers, and discusses how firearms seized by the Bureau of Customs from Hollywood entertainer Marlene Dietrich figured into a larger issue of War Trophy firearms being brought or sent back to the United States by soldiers during World War II, and the prohibition on civilians from doing do. It is also a good illustration of how documentation like this is scattered across the country.

Interestingly, author Larry I. Bland cites documents in National Archives II in College Park, Maryland, as background, but neither quotes nor identifies any of them in his article, with the exception of identifying War Department Circular No. 155 in a footnote. The other documents are worth mentioning here, given the relationship they bear to the article. In Record Group 165, Box 307, is a Memorandum dated May 31, 1946, from Harry N.

Mole, Colonel, GSC, Deputy Director of Intelligence, for the Secretary, General Staff, in denying the appeal of a civilian to bring back a War Trophy firearm, noted that 'several prominent citizens... Had forfeited enemy firearms to the Bureau of Customs' (including Marlene Dietrich), and no exceptions had been made for them. In Record Group 165, Box 208, is a copy of a press release about the Dietrich case to TIME Magazine, and an explanatory Memorandum dated August 23, 1945, from A.

Surles to Col. Merrill Pasco, and refers to Col. Pasco's Memorandum on War Trophy firearms to General Marshall, which undoubtedly makes reference to the August 1, 1945, Memorandum cited by Mr. Bland in his article. Record Group 407, Box 2967, contains a Memorandum for the Deputy Chief of Staff ('Subject: War Trophies') dated August 1, 1945, from LeR Lutes, Lieutenant General, which states: 'One of the provisions of these regulations prohibits United States civilians serving with the United States Army overseas from bringing or mailing back of military firearms,' and mentions several civilians whose War Trophy firearms were confiscated, including Marlene Dietrich.

There is also an inquiry dated August 31, 1945, from the Secretary of State to the Secretary of War, referring to an American citizen married to a Frenchman, who inquired about the 'possibility of German pistols or machine guns' being brought to the United States by merchant seamen, and requested the Secretary of War to inform State of 'any regulations that may be issued relative to the control of such shipments and any other actions that may be taken.' In a letter dated September 13, 1945, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson noted that War Department Circular No. 155 prohibited shipping or bringing back machine guns, and that War Trophy pistols were limited to one per soldier. Higgins, BATF director, testifies before Congress in 1984 about the criminal misuse and availability of machineguns and silencers.

The BATF director clearly states that in the BATF's experience, legally registered NFA weapons are not used in crimes. These hearings may be cited as 'Armor Piercing Ammunition and the Criminal Misuse and Availablility of Machineguns and Silencers.' Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, on H.R. 641 and Related Bills, May 17, 24 and June 27, 1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1986. ATF letter from Lewis P. Raden, Assistant Director (Enforcement Programs and Services), ATF, to Eric M. Larson dated August 24, 2004, bearing symbols CC-82,457 FE:TH, regarding procedures for transferring National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms after the owner of the firearm has died. 'Time to Protect War Trophies,' by Eric M. Larson, published in Shotgun News, Volume 58, Issue 21, August 2, 2004, pages 52-53. NFAOA is grateful to Mr.

Hunnicutt, General Manager and Editor, SHOTGUN NEWS, for kindly granting permission to post this article. This article discusses ATF's decision to reverse a determination that a DEWAT machine gun was contraband, based on evidence that ATF had always possessed since receiving an application to transfer ownership of the DEWAT, and issues involving 'Lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed' under Section 922(o) of Title 18, United States Code. This is ATF's response to a FOIA requesting documentation of ATF's administration of the War Trophy program during 1943-46, when members of the Armed Forces were allowed to bring or send machine guns and other NFA firearms back to the United States, and retain them as their personal property. From the documents ATF provided, it is impossible to determine how the War Trophy program was administered. Note that 37 pages of documents, all presumably relevant, were withheld in their entirety. The fact that ATF has provided other relevant documentation in the past ('Summary of Ken Crane/DEWAT case and related issues,' and the 'ATF-FOIA on Ken Crane/DEWAT case' in this section) but not in these FOIA results, indicates ATF may be improperly withholding public information. These FOIA results have been provided to Rep.

Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada), the Department of Justice Inspector General, and other Members of Congress. This FOIA was filed, with a notarized permission from Ken Crane to release 'tax information' if necessary, to compel ATF to disclose the reason for its decision to reverse a determination that a DEWAT Auto-Ordnance, Model M1, Machinegun bearing serial number 75977 was unregistered contraband. While 'deliberative' documents are exempt from FOIA disclosure, the FOIA law does require that once an official decision is made, that all documents that were created that support or explain the basis for the decision must be disclosed. In particular, this FOIA requests ATF to disclose the legal reason that the evidence of registration that ATF always possessed as part of the application to transfer this firearm, was determined to constitute proof that the foregoing DEWAT was lawfully possessed. In fact, ATF used the same evidence to determine that the same firearm was contraband, as well as legally possessed, and declined to disclose the legal basis for its position. On page 11 of this FOIA, a document ATF created states that 'In letter opinions [regarding DEWATs], ATF did not take a consistent position.' In this letter, the attorney who handled the Ken Crane/DEWAT case complains to Senator Arlen Specter about ATF's failure to recognize a legitimate registration document.

The attorney also refers to ATF's 2004 letter on machine gun registrations, and questions why ATF refuses to change the guidance to heirs who inherit NFA firearms, to let them know what documents ATF recognizes as proof that a DEWAT is lawfully possessed. This letter appears elsewhere in 'Forums' under 'Reference Materials' as A regulation for 'Registration of Firearms as defined in section 2733 of the Internal Revenue Code sent or brought into the United States by members of the armed forces' was published in the INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN, Cumulative Bulletin 1945, January-December 1945, pages 457-458. During 1943-45, Army and Navy personnel 'were permitted to bring or send into the United States captured enemy equipment, including firearms' as defined under the NFA. Revenue Ruling 55-590 established procedures for transforming an NFA firearm 'into a curio by the prescribed method of deactivation, under the supervision of an investigator of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division' to 'be known as a 'DEWAT' that is 'not a firearm within the purview of the National Firearms Act for the reason that it is incapable of firing a shot.'

This Ruling was published in the INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN, Cumulative Bulletin 1955, July-December 1955, pages 483-484. Revenue Ruling 57-227 announces that 'the distinction between an 'unserviceable' firearm and a 'DEWAT' as defined in Revenue Ruling 55-590' will 'be enforced in order to avoid abuses of the ruling in respect of DEWATs.' This Ruling was published in the INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN, Cumulative Bulletin 1957-1, January-June 1957, pages 433-434. Revenue Procedure 58-8 limits the creation of DEWATs to NFA firearms that are registered to natural persons, and deactivated in accordance with established procedures. This Procedure was published in the INTERNAL REVENUE BULLETIN, Cumulative Bulletin 1958-1, January-June 1958, pages 690-691. This IRS or ATF Memorandum dated October 1, 1946, states that 'Customs Circular Letter of October 28, 1943, and War Department Circular No.

217 of June 1, 1946 permitted members of the armed forces to bring or ship into the United States as war trophies items of captured enemy equipment including machine guns and other automatic weapons subject to the National Firearms Act.' Efforts to obtain copies of the foregoing documents, and related documents, via the FOIA process have been unsuccessful. The purpose of this Memorandum is apparently to describe ATF's efforts to locate and render such firearms 'unserviceable.' In this opinion dated August 4, 1978, the ATF's Chief Counsel states that DEWATs that were created as the result of actions by persons who filed the necessary forms and transformed NFA firearms registered to them into DEWATs according to prescribed ATF standards, are considered to be registered in the NFRTR for purposes of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This fascinating, well-researched article identifies no fewer than 12 examples of valid 'Capture Papers' approved by U.S.

Military authorities, which entitled World War II soldiers to retain firearms, binoculars, flags and other so-called 'War Trophy' items and for these soldiers to retain them as their personal property. These 'capture papers' clearly state the legal basis for authorizing soldiers to bring or sent War Trophy firearms back to the United States. Author Jerry Price reproduces actual copies of each 'capture paper' and indicates their physical sizes, as well as smaller facsimile copies containing the same information on the original for purposes of clarity of reference. Copies of this article, which was published in the November 1999 issue of BANZAI magazine, may be purchased from the Editor, Mr. Doss White, by writing to BANZAI, 331 Union Hill Church Road, Falkville, Alabama 35622, and enclosing a $4.00 check (please note what the check is for). Various War Department Circulars issued during and after World War II were used to implement regulations on bringing or sending War Trophy firearms back to the United States.

The provisions 'of Sec. 155, WD, 28 May 1945,' authorized the bearer to 'retain as his personal property,' the articles listed on this 'Certificate,' which had to be authorized by the 'Theater Commander,' in this case John H. Davis, '1ST LT CV CMDG COM B, 301 SIG OPM BN,' under auspices of 'Headquarters United States Forces European Theater.' This certificate is of historical interest, in part, because it (1) authorizes the bearer to bring back an 8mm German MP43 rifle, which is a machine gun, (2) attests that the items 'do not include any items prohibited by Sec. 155, WD, 28 May 1945,' and (3) Section 3(b)(3) of Circular 155, Section IV(3)(B)(3) prohibits 'Firearms of the automatic type (or component parts) such as machine guns, submachine guns, or any type gun in which a number of shots or bullets may be discharged with one continuous pull of the trigger.' It is difficult to know what to make of this approved certificate, in light of the prohibition then in effect on including machine guns as War Trophy firearms. Did the authorizing Theater Commander know about the provisions of Circular 155, or just not care?

It is probably impossible to know. Because Circular 155 stated that in the case of soldiers returning with War Trophy items, 'the signed duplicate certificate will be taken up by an officer of the port of embarkation (and a consolidated certificate accomplished) or by the Customs Bureau or by military authorities at the port of debarkation,' it is possible that in some cases 'military authorities' allowed the importation nevertheless, possibly sympathetic to their comrades in arms, but this is a conjecture. Customs officials may have been less likely to allow an importation in violation of regulations but, again, there is no reliable way to know. Click to read a copy of War Department Circular 155, copied at National Archives II, College Park, Maryland, located in Record Group 407, Box 2967.

This undated letter from Assistant Regional Commissioner W. Dunigan, Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Division, IRS, describes 'a final drive' by the U.S. Treasury Department 'to deactivate dangerous war trophy firearms... Without cost to the firearm owner and without damage to the souvenir value.' An accompanying poster dated January 1956 advises readers 'Gangster Shoots Officer and Bystander With Trophy Gun,' 'Souvenir Machine Gun Explodes Killing Mother and Child,' and depicts various cautionary symbolic images. This example of the registration of an unregistered NFA firearm acquired by inheritance was approved and received for registration on February 12, 1946, in this case for a shoulder-stocked Luger pistol. The NFA did not require payment of any tax or fee for an original registration.

According to Regulations 88 for 1941, every person who 'acquired' an unregistered NFA firearm not registered to him after June 26, 1934, 'must register such firearm on Form 1 (Firearms) in duplicate, with the [Internal Revenue] collector for the district in which such person resides' (Sec. 319.31, page 19). Under the original NFA, an original registrant was not required to provide a photograph or fingerprints; such requirements only applied to a subsequent transfer, provisions that survived during the amnesty period under the National Firearms Act of 1968 (also known as Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968). Specifically, a person who possessed an unregistered NFA firearm was required to register it using Form 4467 during the period from November 2, 1968, to December 1, 1968, and was not required to submit fingerprints or a photograph, or pay any tax or fee. As was the case under the original NFA, fingerprints and a photograph were required only for a subsequent transfer, in which a transfer tax may or may not apply. Ken Crane filed a detailed complaint with the Department of Justice Inspector General in a letter dated March 1, 2003, which contains 18 exhibits that detail every aspect of ATF's attempts to unjustly seize and forfeit, as well as to improperly attempt to intimidate an 80-year-old widow who inherited a DEWAT from her late husband into 'voluntarily abandoning' the gun. This is the primary source material Eric M.

Larson used to write the article 'Time to Protect War Trophies,' published in Shotgun News, Volume 58, Issue 21, August 2, 2004, which is reproduced elsewhere in this section. James Bardwell's comments on Staples vs. United States, quoted from his mirror: 'This is also a very interesting case, where the Supreme Court reversed the 10th circuit and decided that in order to convict someone under the NFA of possessing an unregistered (untaxed) weapon, they must prove the defendant knew it was the sort of gun regulated by the NFA.

In this case they had to show the defendant knew the rifle in question was fully automatic. This case was really answered in the Freed case [ United States vs. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971)], where the court said part of a violation of the NFA was the defendant's knowing the weapons in question were the sort subject to regulation. Freed held explicitly, and Staples didn't touch, that the government need not prove the defendant knew about the registration stuff, only the nature of the weapon that made it subject to registration.

Lower courts had however been ignoring Freed, claiming the government needed to only show the guns were in fact the sort regulated, regardless of whether the defendant knew they had that feature. In Freed the NFA weapons were hand grenades, which made showing the defendant knew the nature of the weapons sort of irrelevant, although I guess there could have been an issue about whether he knew there was explosive material inside them. However with an mg, it can appear to be a regular semi-auto. This case will end a lot of stupid prosecution, for possessing a weapon that didn't work, but the feds could work on till it did, or for the feds to tape together parts kits - they can do whatever they want, but they will have to prove the defendant knew the thing was a machine gun, not just that they could make it behave as one.'

An interesting aspect of Staples vs. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), posted elsewhere in this section, is that it would affect on a case such as this one were it to be brought for prosecution. The reason is that under case law that existed at the time of United States vs. Whalen, all the Government had to do was prove that the defendant knew that the DEWATs were firearms in the ordinary sense, not that they were illegal firearms. What's the difference today, because of Staples?

Simply that if a widow or heir encounters a DEWAT or even a live machine gun in an estate, and ATF through some manner learns about it and charges the widow or heir with illegally possessing a machine gun, Staples requires that ATF must prove that the widow or heir knew that the firearm was illegal to possess to obtain a conviction. With circumstances such as those in the Ken Crane/DEWAT case, where a person possesses ATF-issued paperwork, ATF would clearly have had a difficult time with a prosecution or seizure and forfeiture, aside from the fact that ATF doesn't want to litigate the definition of a 'registered' NFA firearm or device in any Federal District Court.

James Bardwell's comments on United States vs. Whalen, quoted from his mirror. 'This is a sad one. It happened soon after the 1968 Amnesty, (1970) and after the change to require DEWAT's be registered. Whalen was a cop from Westchester County, NY who had a bunch of mg's (9) acquired while he was a cop. Even though they were live while he was a cop they were apparently not registered. When he left the force he had them welded up, and only one was ever registered as a DEWAT.

Then he put an ad in the paper to sell his war memorabilia collection, including the mg's. Needless to say, the folks who showed up with cash were ATF agents. He got busted for 8 counts of unregistered mg's, and 9 counts of transfer without the tax (ATF didn't like the welding job), or an application. The issue here was, were DEWAT's now subject to registration, and the NFA?

The court said yes. I don't know what happened to Whalen, he had some defenses to raise at trial as well (like the sufficiency of the DEWATting (as to the tax), and whether he had actually tried to transfer the guns, ATF may have arrested him too early in the negotiations.).

The court goes over the ATT Rulings that created the DEWAT program, and the legal distinction between a DEWAT and an unserviceable gun, which was erased by the 1968 changes to the NFA. The case also notes ATF retained all the initial registrations of guns that were re-made as DEWATs and removed from the need to have a transfer application after that. A gun was supposed to be registered, then if it was steel welded in front of an ATT inspector, the gun need not be transferred in compliance with the NFA (i.e., sold by mail without a transfer, or tax). According to the 1980 Senate hearings into the ATF, the DEWAT records were destroyed, without any legal justification, at some point before 1975.

This case cites the three Revenue Rulings that created the DEWAT program, and which are on the server as well.' NOTE: All the Revenue Rulings cited in United States vs. Whalen are also posted in this section. Legal issues regarding the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR. On June 8, 2010, a citizen wrote to ATF Deputy Director Kenneth Melson, citing testimony by an Expert Witness in a 2009 criminal case 'that NFRTR data were useful for exploratory purposes, but could not be used for prosecution unless the data could be independently verified,' and expressed concerns about the legal validity of ATF routinely using evidence from NFRTR lookups 'to justify issuing search warrants, filing criminal charges, and other law enforcement activities.'

On June 9, 2010, Deputy Director Melson responded: 'I will make sure we look into this.' To read a copy of the e-mail message and the response, click. In a letter dated August 30, 2010, Arthur Herbert, Assistant Director, Office of Enforcement Programs and Services, discussed the concerns by failing to acknowledge firearm registration and/or transfer documents are missing from ATF's version of the NFRTR (click to read it). He states: 'The inspection records upon which you based your conclusions are worksheets prepared by ATF investigators to note potential discrepancies in the NFRTR.

The inspection inventory worksheets generated by investigators are merely the preliminary tools used by ATF for inventory reconciliation. They are not a record of the final outcome of NFRTR and application archive research or final inventory reconciliation.' This answer is incorrect, uninformative, and misleading. Put another way, Mr. Herbert is saying 'you have incorrectly concluded the NFRTR has missing records, because ATF has not had the opportunity to add the missing records its investigators discovered back into the NFRTR yet.' Herbert further states: '... The NFRTR cannot possibly reflect transactions that have not been reported to ATF...

Herbert clearly has no idea of how transfer documents work. Countless transfers to dealers from dealers and from individuals have been approved, but are not in the NFRTR compliance record brought to the dealers on inspections. Every one of these transfers was reported to ATF by appropriate transfer forms, were approved and returned and then the NFA firearm or device was transferred in compliance, yet ATF will not have records of them during inspections. The dealers are then required to prove to ATF that the approved transfers exist and that the NFA firearm or device was appropriately transferred out or in or wherever. It is not possible to not report a transfer to ATF and then transfer an NFA item. No one ever does this. During the latter part of June 2010, ATF created an updated PowerPoint presentation entitled 'OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT: ROLL CALL TRAINING,' which was made available to all ATF employees (click to see it).

Slide 39 states: --The NFRTR System is an effective investigative tool in determining whether an inquiry is worth pursuing; however, an 'official' NFRTR must be obtained for purposes of 'probable cause' for a warrant or for conducting a compliance inspection of an NFA dealer, manufacturer or importer. --The 'official' NFRTR is only available from the NFA Branch. --Sealed certificates must be requested for Court. The language in the first bullet of Slide 39 is nearly identical to language in the e-mail message to Deputy Director Melson, and implies that a higher standard of evaluation has now been formally implemented for review of NFRTR evidence than has been in the case in the past.

Whether or to what extent ATF has made 'unofficial' use of NFRTR data was not addressed in the presentation. According to documentation released August 3, 2010, in response to a FOIA request (click to read it) for documents that provided the basis for the 'OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT: ROLL CALL TRAINING' slide presentation, it was 'developed' on June 16, 2010, for 'Special Agent and Industry Operations Investigator personnel,' and was accompanied by 22 pages of 'LESSON OBJECTIVES.' A note on page 22 of the lesson objectives states: 'IOIs should not discuss the reconciliation of the NFRTR to the inventory on-hand with the FFL during an inspection. Coordinate reconciliation from inspection findings with the NFA Branch upon returning to the office and include in the inspection report.' On page 18 of the lesson objectives, SAs and IOIs are instructed: 'The NFRTR system is an effective investigative tool in determining whether an inquiry is worth pursuing, however, an 'official' NFRTR must be obtained for purposes of 'probable cause' for a warrant or for conducting a compliance inspection of an NFA dealer, manufacturer or importer.'

The lesson objective also states: 'The 'official' NFRTR is only available from the NFA Branch,' but, again, no definition of the 'official' NFRTR is stated. Defense counsel would be advised, in a case involving apparently discrepant and/or missing NFRTR records, to obtain documentation through Discovery of what is meant by the 'official' NFRTR and the implications of the past use of an 'unofficial' NFRTR. It might also be useful to ask ATF how it justified including transactions in NFA firearms or devices on the revised Form 4473 in August 2008, inasmuch as it duplicates the record-keeping in the NFRTR and might be viewed as committing waste of public resources.

But it seems obvious that NFRTR transactions are also recorded on Forms 4473 because of significant and continuing problems with the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR. An ATF Special Agent remarked in August 2010: 'All I know is the NFRTR is a mess. What to do about it I'm not sure.' Concurrently available with the PowerPoint presentation is a Memorandum dated December 4, 2007, (click to read it) which states 'there has not always been a consistent procedure for reconciling inventory discrepancy reports sent to the NFA Branch by Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs).' The Memorandum also notes that '[t]he NFA Branch has no independent means of validating' NFRTR data 'from applications submitted by [firearm] industry members and law enforcement agencies,' and that field inspections 'serve as an important quality assurance check on NFRTR data not previously validated by an independent, physical examination of a weapon.' This latter statement appears to acknowledge that ATF has been aware for some time that its NFRTR description of an NFA firearm or device may not be accurate.

For example, a criminal case that stretched out during 2008 and 2009 showed that ATF has no real knowledge of what actually happened when machine guns were manufactured and registered during the period from November 2, 1968, to May 19, 1986. This is demonstrated conclusively by the Friesen case, discussed elsewhere on this site. ATF talked Assistant United States Attorney Edward Kumiega into believing that 25 examples of STEN machine guns manufactured and registered by Charles Erb would all be exactly alike; subpoenaed all 25 guns and brought them into evidence; and believed this would show that the STEN allegedly manufactured by defendant Douglas Friesen would stick out like a sore thumb. In fact, none of the STENs were alike, and ATF blew the case because of it. The descriptions of the STENs on ATF's version of the NFRTR simply did not match the guns. Two of the machine guns were Sterlings!

Serial number fonts were different. One was just a tube, not a gun. The markings were missing and/or inconsistent. ATF won't be trotting out that 'evidence' any time soon, though it could be discoverable depending on the case, because it reliably impeaches the 'firearm description' aspect of the NFRTR. Also of interest in the FOIA release dated August 3, 2010 is what appears to be a page from what ATF refers to as the IOI Handbook ATF H5030.2C, which is used by Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs), but may also be an instruction to what are now called Legal Document Examiners (NFA Branch employees who approve transfer applications).

Click to read it. The page was not, however, specifically attributed to a source by any of the materials in the FOIA, so it could be part of some other type of manual, such as from the NFA Branch or other ATF component. What stands out is the instruction to look in old paper files if the registration was prior to 1983. But how would anybody at ATF know whether the registration was prior to 1983? More baldly, the instruction suggests that not all the registration data from an old paper-based system were transferred into whatever presumably automated/electronic data base system being used now. If ATF is still telling their own folks to check paper records from 1983 and earlier, what does that say about how accurate and complete ATF regards the NFRTR right now? The other thing that stands out is the reference to firearms manufactured on or before May 19, 1986, a presumable reference to machine guns.

The instruction to refuse to accept a manufacturer's copy of a Form 2 is puzzling because (1) ATF returns an approved Form 2 to the manufacturer, along with a notation of the date it was received, and (2) ATF is currently using manufacturer's copies of approved Forms 2 to make corrections in the NFRTR by adding a record of registration, such as are shown in copies of documents from FOIA release 08-726, posted below.