Very early and very rare World War I era shoulder patch for the 31st “Dixie” Division consisting of a triangle bisected with red and blue denoting a machine gun battalion with two “D”s back-to-back. This patch was very quickly changed to a white disk on which is a red circle within which are two red “D”s back-to-back. The 31st infantry Division was a unit of the Army National Guard originally established in early 1917 as the 10th Division with Alabama, Florida and Georgia national guardsmen. Later that same year, the 10th became the 31st. Trained at Camp Gordon, Georgia, the Division arrived in France in September 1918 and was designated as a replacement Division. The Division returned to the U.S. in July 1919 where the men were mustered out of service. The 31st Division was mobilized in 1940 with National Guard Divisions from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Russian Medallion

A Russian, large, bronze-clad metal table medallion commemorating Vasily Alekseyevich Degtyarev (1880-1949). The obverse has a raised relief image of Degtyarev with the inscription, in Russian, “In Honor of the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of Vasily Alekseyevich Degtyarev 1880-1980.” The reverse inscription reads, “Russian Gunsmiths USSR,” with a central image of a DP-28 light machine gun that Degtyarev created and which was the main light machine gun of the Russian army in World War II. The medallion measures 75 mm in diameter and also has the original red plastic box/stand.

WWI Brodie Helmet

U.S. World War I Brodie helmet for a machine gun company of the 27th Infantry Regiment of the American Expeditionary Force Siberia (A.E.F. Siberia). Painted in white winter camouflage with the A.E.F. Siberia insignia painted on the front of an “S” (for Siberia) superimposed upon a standing bear within an artillery shell. On the right side of the helmet is painted “27th” over “MG.” The machine gun companies were issued Browning Model of 1917 water-cooled machine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles (BAR) Model of 1918. Nearly 8,000 men, mostly from the 27th and then the 31st Infantry Regiments, were sent to Russia during World War I after the October Revolution from 1918 to 1920 and suffered severely from the brutal Siberian winter.

They were sent to Russia to help rescue the 40,000 men of the Czechoslovak Legions being held up by Bolshevik forces as they attempted to make their way along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok and, hopefully, to the Western Front. Additionally, they were sent to protect the large quantities of military supplies and railroad rolling stock that the U.S. had sent to Russia in support of the war effort against Germany before the Bolshevik Revolution. They failed in their mission.

Cap and Collar Badge

South Waziristan Scouts officer’s cap and collar badge circa 1920s. The cap badge has the British king’s crown over crossed Vickers with “South Waziristan Scouts” banner below with four lugs to the rear. The collar badge has the king’s crown over a mountain goat head and two lugs to the rear. South Waziristan is the southern part of Waziristan, a mountainous region of northwest Pakistan. The region was an independent tribal territory from 1893, remaining outside of the British-ruled Empire and Afghanistan. Tribal raiding into British-ruled territory was a constant problem for the British, requiring frequent punitive expeditions between 1860 and 1945. The region became part of Pakistan in 1947.

Sweetheart Pin

A sweetheart pin for the 3rd Machine Gun Company, 1st Canadian Division has red, white and blue enamel on a brass badge, with the king’s crown to the top and a Vickers machine gun on tripod to the center. The top banner reads, “3rd M.G. Co.” and below is “1st Canadian Division.” Pin back.

Swedish Machine Gunner Badge

A Swedish 1950s-era army machine gunner’s silver metal shooting breast badge that has three Swedish crowns to the top with two crossed M45 submachine guns to the center. Pin back.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, optimization must be a close second. Ironically, a great way to measure the success of any gun design is to gaze upon the vast array of aftermarket parts and accessories available to modify the original. A robust secondary market can only occur when the primary market is healthy enough to support subsequent adaptations.

Enter the Ruger model 22/45 Mark 3 pistol. The design is evolutionary if not revolutionary in that it combines the rugged reliability of Ruger’s first handgun made over 65 years ago with a modern polymer grip frame that reduces weight (and cost) while emulating the even more venerable 1911. Prior versions of the 22/45 lacked the elegance of the current model with limited grip texture, adaptability, and let’s face it, early 90’s cosmetics that were not the strongest for this gun maker. Additional safety features were added to the Mark 3 permitting sales in all domestic markets and were otherwise a benefit (or minor nuisance) to their owners. Among the array of features available to remake the 22/45 in one’s own image, this author chose a number of small ones available from TandemKross (TK) and one big one from Tactical Solutions.

Tactical Solutions of Boise, ID, has been in business since 2002, making barrels, receivers, conversion kits and even sound suppressors. Replacing the all-steel Ruger-barreled upper receiver with one from Tactical Solutions (mostly aluminum) remakes the pistol in a much lighter package with excellent adjustable sights, an optional threaded muzzle and a subdued finish that is a better match to the polymer frame than the original. The only feature loss at this point is the deletion of the chamber loaded indicator, a feature that never enjoyed significant consumer driven demand. Due to the nature of the host Ruger pistol design, the Tactical Solutions upper receiver bears a serial number, related manufacturer markings and must be treated legally like any other complete firearm or serialized firearm receiver.

Threaded Tactical Solutions 22/45 hybrids have become a staple for those who wanted a .22 pistol that was light weight, rugged and suppressor ready from a manufacturer reliable enough to ensure correct alignment of the threads and engagement shoulder. Mark 3’s front and back strap checkering along with Ruger’s rubber 1911 diamond grips make for excellent ergonomics in the shooter’s hand. The cosmetic details of this union include a matte anodized finish that offers a seamless mate to most light weight 1” sound suppressors or the flush fitting thread protector included with each threaded receiver.

Where this combination ends, the Tandem Kross options continue to enhance with a variety of substitute parts and accessories. Perhaps most valuable is the “Kanewolf” slingshot kit that replaces the locking ball and detent bolt stop/release with a shorter spring-loaded bolt stop that will automatically disengage when the bolt is retracted in the absence of an empty magazine. This corrects the most glaring departure of the Ruger 22/45 series manual of arms from those of traditional semi-automatic pistols. Once installed, the pistol no longer requires a downward motion of the thumb to release the bolt.

A close second in enhancements would be the hammer bushing that replaces three internal parts responsible for the Mark 3 magazine disconnect safety. On combat handguns, the presence of a magazine safety is a topic of much debate but for Ruger Mark 3 pistols that require multiple manipulations of the trigger and sear for assembly and disassembly, such a feature adds undesired complexity to an otherwise tricky process.

Two more obvious traditional enhancements include an extended magazine release and “Plus 1 Pro” bumper magazine extension that adds one round to the original 10-round 22/45 magazine capacity. This floor plate also incorporates an optional spring-loaded feature that will more positively eject the magazine from the grip. Most recreation and sport shooters have no need to perform a lightning fast reload with a .22 pistol, but for those wishing to model the performance of a combat centerfire pistol, the combination of all the features listed above makes for a better rim-fire substitute over the original.

Additional enhancements are also available and include the “Fire Starter” titanium firing pin, “Game Changer” compensator, the “Victory” Trigger and “Challenger” Charging Handle. While the benefits of a lighter titanium firing pin are subtle, the “Victory” trigger has a flat geometry and two set screw adjustments to limit both rearward and forward travel. Serious target shooters with the sensitivity to benefit from these will be the ultimate judge, but even this author’s more rugged tastes were forced to admit a noticeable reduction in perceived recoil and muzzle flip when the “Game Changer” compensator was added to the muzzle threads. If you have the need to tame the recoil of such a light weight .22 LR this accessory definitely does its part.

The “Challenger” Charging Handle was ultimately not used because the female mounting surfaces were intended for the tapered bolt serrations of the newer Ruger models, and this particular gun was assembled using an earlier squared-off bolt. The benefits of such an addition may only be necessary on a pistol assembled with an oversized optical sight limiting manual access to the rear of the gun. In any case, it’s better to have more options than too few.

The finishing touch to this project was done with a set of aluminum “Super Grips” offered for sale by Tandem Kross. These items are not TK originals but helpfully marketed through them and well worth the expense to enhance the already elegant grip ergonomics. The professionals at Tandem Kross clearly recognize quality when they see it and can be relied upon to continue to innovate and market new ways to optimize, adapt or modify classic designs to make them better. In each step of assembly they also support their products with well-produced and easy-to-understand online video demonstrations of correct installation and use. Even the least mechanically inclined user can see for himself what is required to install and use every product offered by Tandem Kross even before he makes the decision to buy.

CHRISTENSEN ARMS RELEASE NEW STEEL-BARRELED LIGHTWEIGHT RIFLE

Continuing the strong tradition of excellence in design and performance, Christensen Arms is proud to announce its newest bolt-action rifle, the Mesa. Featuring a featherlight contour, stainless steel barrel and carrying the Christensen Arms’ Sub-MOA Guarantee, the Mesa offers a lightweight (6.65 pounds) and accurate package at an affordable price—$1,295 MSRP. Other features include a tungsten Cerakote finish, a removable seamless radial brake, a carbon-reinforced fiberglass stock, an adjustable match-grade trigger and many of the industry-leading features you would expect in a Christensen Arms’ rifle. The Mesa is available in multiple calibers including, .308 WIN, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 WIN MAG, 7 mm-08, and 7 mm Rem Mag. The Mesa is currently shipping and available for purchase. For purchase information, please contact your local Christensen Arms dealer or find a dealer near you at www.christensenarms.com.

LUCID OPTICS L7 OFFERS QUALITY AND VALUE

LUCID Optics, manufacturer of the best value line of optics on the market, is proud to offer the new L7 Rifle Scope. The L7 1-6x 24 Rifle Scope offers users a crystal clear true 1x to 6x performance-driven optic. The glass-etched L7 reticle makes this optic an ideal match for use with the AR platform in short- to medium-range applications with most calibers. The L7 features a durable 30-mm aircraft grade, one-piece tube construction. The windage and elevation turrets offer 60 MOA on either side of the optical, center set with an easy to use “lift, adjust, press down to lock” design that is both accurate and durable with re-zeroable turrets. An operator selectable magnification lever allows the user to change the zoom function quickly. The L7 is 10.75 inches in length, weighs 20.4 ounces and is waterproof, fog proof and shockproof. MSRP for the L7 is just $449. To learn more and see the full list of specifications and features, visit www.mylucidgear.com.

MICRO RONI AND NON-NFA MICRO RONI NOW AVAILABLE

CAA, developers and manufacturers of advanced battle-tested firearms accessories, announces that the highly anticipated Micro RONI and the non-NFA Micro RONI with Stabilizer Brace are now shipping throughout the country to distributors and qualified dealers. The Micro RONI and the Micro RONI-STAB are the most compact pistol-to-carbine conversion kits ever produced. The Micro RONIs are each fitted for GLOCK models 17, 22 and 31 or models 19, 23 and 32—model specific. The Micro RONI-STAB carbine conversion requires no paperwork, no tax stamp and best of all, no wait! It features an officially licensed SB Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Brace which enhances one-handed firing of the Micro RONI-STAB by attaching to the operator’s forearm. The Pistol Stabilizing Brace has an adjustable and flexible nylon strap for a custom fit for any user. Although originally designed for wounded combat veterans and others with disabilities that inhibit their ability to securely hold a firearm, the overwhelming acceptance of the Brace within the firearms community has propelled the product to be one of the most sought after PDW pistol accessories on the market. The Micro RONI-STAB is constructed from high-quality reinforced polymers to exacting tolerances. The Micro RONI is by far the quickest and easiest conversion kit and can be converted in less than two seconds! It is also the most cost-effective. The Micro RONI with folding stock can be secured on a single-point sling and easily concealed for private security personnel. The pistol can still be operated with the right-folding stock folded. The space-saving Micro RONI makes an excellent personal or home protection carbine. For GLOCK aficionados, the Micro RONI will take their best pistol score at 25 yards and increase its range up to 100 yards with fantastic accuracy potential. No tools are necessary to convert the pistol to a carbine. By simply dropping the pistol in the kit and locking it, the Micro RONI conversion kit with the integrated pistol now functions as a singular, durable and accurate unit. Topped with a long Picatinny rail for the addition of lights, laser and NVDs, the Micro Roni’s features do not stop there. Additional accessory space has been added with two extra Picatinny rails on either side of the frame. An extra magazine carrier in front of the pistol aids in fast reloading and offers additional grip placement. Both Micro RONIs are ambidextrous, including many of the controls such as the trigger guard safety and a superfast cocking handle. Optional thumb rests are serrated in right and left positions for increased recoil control and controlled muzzle rise. New optional integral flashlights for the Micro RONI have been designed for the GLOCK Models 17 and 19. The FLFR features an on/off switch on its side and has a powerful 500 lumens of white light using a highly efficient LED. The Micro RONI and Micro RONI-STAB are available in Desert Tan, Black and OD and open the possibilities for Gens 3 and 4 GLOCK owners. You can visit them at www.usa.caagearup.com.

SPYDERCO INTRODUCES PARA MILITARY 3 KNIFE

Spyderco’s Para Military 2 is one of the most sought after and widely carried folding knives made. Many consider it the perfect pocket cutting tool, so what could make it better? For those who prefer shorter blades or live in areas with blade-length restrictions, the answer is a more compact, scaled-down version with a three-inch blade; Spyderco introduces the Para Military 3. This refined folding knife maintains all the essential features of the Para Military 2, including a full-flat-ground CPMS30V stainless steel blade, a high-strength Compression Lock mechanism, nested stainless steel liners, textured G-10 scales and a lightweight, easy-to-clean, open-backed construction. It also features a four-position clip that provides left- or right-side tip-up or tip-down carry and a generously sized lined lanyard hole. This knife carries a retail price of $199.95 and you can find out more at www.spyderco.com.

SHELL SHOCK’S REVOLUTIONARY 9-MM NAS3 CASES AND RELOADING TOOLS NOW AVAILABLE

Shell Shock Technologies, LLC, an early-stage technology and manufacturing company focused on developing innovative case technologies for the ammunition industry, announces that its revolutionary NAS3 cases and S3 Reload tools are now available for sale on its website (www.shellshocktech.com). NAS3 cases are 50-percent lighter than brass cases, offer greater lubricity and will not abrade, clog, foul, wear-out or damage breach and ejector mechanisms. The cases also offer greater corrosion resistance, tensile strength (2x stronger) and elasticity than brass. NAS3 cases will not split, chip, crack or grow (stretch) and are fully reloadable with S3 Reload dies. Customers have reported being able to reload NAS3 cases many more times than brass cases. A video can be found on Shell Shock’s website showing 9-mm Luger NAS3 cases being reloaded 32 times using S3 Reload dies. NAS3 cases have been tested successfully to pressures over 70k psi. NAS3 cases eject cool-to-the-touch and can be picked up with a magnet. The head can be colored for branding purposes and easy load identification. NAS3 cases are “Best in Class” for maintaining consistent velocity between rounds. In an independent test performed by H.P. White Laboratory (a major munitions testing facility) 9-mm rounds fired using NAS3 cases achieved a velocity standard deviation of 0.93 fps (124-grain FMJ bullet, 4.2 grains Titegroup powder, 10 rounds, extreme variation 3 fps). New NAS3 cases do not need sizing or flaring (i.e., requiring few stations/operations on the loading machine); they are delivered sized, flared and ready for primer, powder drop, bullet drop and crimp. Reloaders may find that NAS3 cases also require less crimping than conventional brass cases. Shell Shock’s NAS3 cases can be reloaded using a specially designed set of S3 Reload sizing and flaring dies. NAS3 cases are manufactured in two parts that are held together by a high-strength compression joint. Conventional reloading dies can put unnecessary stress on this joint (caused by the way cases are pulled out of the dies using the case rim/extraction groove). Unlike conventional brass cases, NAS3 cases were designed to enable the highest possible number of reloads. Conventional reloading tools are not suitable for use with NAS3 cases. To maximize the number of achievable reloads, S3 Reload sizing and flaring dies incorporate a spring mechanism that pushes the case out of the die without any risk of damaging the case. This technique puts no stress on the compression joint and does not damage the case rim. S3 Reload dies are designed to work on most bench-top reloading presses, including Hornady, Lee Precision, Inc., RCBS and Dillon Precision Products, Inc. machinery. S3 Reload dies can also be used with conventional brass cases. More information on the S3 Reload dies, including instructional videos, can be found at www.shellshocktech.com.

ATF’s Demand Letter Program–Alive and Well Since 2000

In 2000 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) began a program it calls the “Demand Letter Program,” which requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) who receive such letters to report specified information to the agency concerning the FFL’s acquisition and/or disposition of certain firearms. The program was expanded in 2011 to require FFLs in four states along the southwest border to provide multiple sales reports for specified semi-automatic rifles. This article will address the reasons ATF established the demand letter program, summarize the requirements of Demand Letter 1, Demand Letter 2 and Demand Letter 3 and discuss litigation challenging the program.

I. Legal Background

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) requires FFLs to maintain records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale or other disposition of firearms as specified in regulations issued by ATF. ATF has a right to inspect such records, without a warrant, during an annual compliance inspection, at any time in connection with tracing of crime guns or in the course of an investigation of a person other than the FFL whose records are being inspected. The GCA requires FFLs to respond to ATF firearms trace requests within 24 hours.

Since 1968, the GCA has included a provision giving ATF the authority to require FFLs to report firearms record information to ATF when requested to do so by letter. This legal authority provides the basis for the demand letters that are the subject of this article.

II. Demand Letters and the Reasons They Are Sent to FFLs

1. Demand Letter 1

Demand Letter 1 is related to ATF’s firearms tracing program, which is an important part of the agency’s mission to assist other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in investigating firearms-related crime. ATF traces firearms when they are recovered by a law enforcement agency as a “crime gun.” ATF defines “crime gun” as any firearm that is illegally possessed, used in a crime or suspected by law enforcement officials of having been used in a crime. However, we note that ATF acknowledges in its firearms trace data disclaimer that not all firearms traced are used in crime.

Trace requests are submitted to ATF’s National Tracing Center via telephone, fax or through ATF’s e-Trace program. Tracing begins with the requesting agency providing information about the markings on the firearm. This information allows ATF to identify the manufacturer or importer of the firearm. ATF personnel then contact the manufacturer or importer and, using their GCA records, trace the firearm through distributors to the first retail purchaser of record. ATF provides trace information to the law enforcement agency requesting the trace, giving the agency information that can be useful in investigating firearms-related crime. Failure of FFLs to respond to trace requests at all or in a timely manner prevents ATF from effectively carrying out its tracing program.

ATF began issuing Demand Letter 1 in February 2000 to address the problem of FFLs who fail to comply with the statutory requirement to respond to firearm trace requests within 24 hours. FFLs who receive Demand Letter 1 must send ATF complete copies of their acquisition and disposition records for the last three years and continue to send the records to ATF on a monthly basis until told otherwise. The information provided by the FFL is used by ATF to trace firearms if the FFL continues to be uncooperative with such requests. There are generally very few FFLs who receive Demand Letter 1 in a given year, as the vast majority of FFLs comply with their statutory responsibility to provide ATF with trace information on a timely basis. In litigation challenging Demand Letter 1, ATF stated that less than 0.1 percent of all FFLs received the letter.

The cost of complying with Demand Letter 1 is significant, as it requires FFLs to provide ATF with an initial report of three years of acquisition and disposition information, followed by monthly reports thereafter. FFLs who receive Demand Letter 1 quickly learn the importance of responding to trace requests and are generally dropped from the Demand Letter program within one to two years of receiving the letter from ATF.

2. Demand Letter 2

ATF began issuing Demand Letter 2 in February 2000, at the same time the agency began the Demand Letter 1 program. The purpose of the Demand Letter 2 program was to provide ATF with information on used gun acquisitions. Used firearms are difficult or impossible to trace once they are sold to a consumer and leave the inventory of a FFL. When ATF receives a trace request for a firearm that was sold by a retail FFL and the firearm is no longer in the hands of the consumer who purchased it, ATF must rely primarily on interviews of individuals involved in the chain of distribution to trace the firearms. The interviews are time-consuming and frequently unproductive. For this reason, ATF generally does not trace used firearms unless they are involved in a high-profile crime.

Demand Letter 2 was intended to provide ATF with data on the acquisition of used firearms by certain FFLs to give ATF data useful in tracing such used firearms. In 2000 ATF sent Demand Letter 2 to FFLs who in 1999 received from ATF requests to trace 10 or more firearms with a short “time-to-crime” of three years or less. “Time-to-crime” is the time from the retail sale of the firearm to the time it is recovered at a crime scene or is traced. ATF stated in litigation challenging Demand Letter 2 that average time-to-crime for traced firearms is six years, and a time-to-crime of three years or less is a trafficking indicator. The demand letters sent to approximately 450 FFLs in 2000 stated that ATF research indicated a significant number of traces of new firearms may also mean the FFL was selling a high volume of secondhand firearms used in crime. Accordingly, the ATF letters required the FFL to provide acquisition information on the secondhand firearms they acquired during 1999. The reports must be provided on a quarterly basis. Significantly, the letters do not require FFLs to provide any information about the name of the purchaser of the secondhand firearm. Only if the firearm is the subject of a trace request would ATF contact the FFL to obtain this information. ATF fashioned the Demand Letter 2 program in this manner to avoid any appearance the agency was creating a registry of firearms owners.

The Demand Letter 2 Program continues, and each year ATF evaluates and adjusts the number of short time-to-crime traces that will be required for a particular FFL to be included in the program. The 10 or more figure was used in 2000, but ATF may bump it up to 15, 20 or more, depending on the number of crime gun traces in a particular year and the agency’s resources available to enter the data from demand letters into the firearms tracing system.

Compliance with Demand Letter 2 is burdensome for FFLs, as identifying used firearm sales may be challenging and preparing quarterly reports is resource-intensive. The program has been criticized because even the most compliant FFLs may receive Demand Letter 2 if they are located in an urban, high-crime area. Location is a good predictor of short time-to-crime traces even when the FFL is fully compliant with the law and regulations. The only solution for compliant FFLs who receive Demand Letter 2 year after year may be to relocate.

3. Demand Letter 3

In December, 2010, ATF announced its intention of establishing the Demand Letter 3 Program. The purpose of the program, as announced by ATF’s then-Director, Kenneth Melson, was to obtain actionable law enforcement intelligence to help reduce criminal firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border. Implementation of the program was delayed until July 2011, because ATF was required to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for the collections of information required by the program. As part of that process ATF published in the Federal Register two notices concerning the program and evaluated over 12,000 comments from the public.

When Director Melson announced Demand Letter Program 3 in December 2010, he explained that there was a significant increase in drug and firearms-related violence in Mexico and along the U.S. Southwest Border beginning in 2006. He further stated that ATF tracing data, investigative experience and Mexican law enforcement officials indicated that a large number of rifles were being used in violent crimes in Mexico and along the border. The Demand Letter 3 program was intended to implement limited reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns by licensees in specified border states. The multiple sales reporting requirement is similar to that imposed for handguns under the Gun Control Act but applies only to licensed dealers in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California, which Director Melson stated are major source states for crime guns seized in Mexico and traced to federal firearms licensees. The reporting requirement of Demand Letter 3 applies only to the following rifles:

• Semi-automatic action;
• Caliber greater than .22; and
• Ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Director Melson announced the Demand Letter 3 program would be adopted as a one-year pilot program. The letters requiring licensed dealers to report their multiple sales of specified rifles were sent out in July 2011. The letters required licensees to begin reporting multiple sales occurring on or after August 14, 2011, and to continue submitting the reports until directed by ATF to stop. ATF Form 3310.12, Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles, must be completed for any transaction in which an unlicensed person acquired, at one time or during five consecutive business days, two or more of the specified rifles. The form must be submitted to ATF’s National Tracing Center no later than the close of business on the day the multiple sale occurs. The reason ATF requires that Demand Letter 3 information be submitted immediately, rather than on a monthly or quarterly basis, is ATF’s belief that multiple sales of the specified rifles are a strong indicator of trafficking. If the information is submitted to ATF immediately after the firearms are acquired, ATF is able to investigate the purchase in a timely manner.

In litigation challenging Demand Letter 3 ATF stated that most firearms trafficked into Mexico are facilitated by Mexican drug trafficking organizations who recruit straw purchasers in the U.S. to obtain certain firearms. Because the straw purchasers are not prohibited by law from acquiring the firearms, it is difficult to identify them as agents of drug cartels. The information acquired from Demand Letter 3 was intended to give ATF additional, timely intelligence to aid them in detecting firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border.

An information collection notice published in the Federal Register in 2014 relating to the Demand Letter 3 program indicates that the number of licensees required to report multiple sales of the specified rifles at that time was 2,509. A Fact Sheet dated February 2015 for the National Tracing Center currently posted on ATF’s website indicates that the Demand Letter 3 program is ongoing.

Litigation Challenging Demand Letters

All of ATF’s Demand Letter programs have been challenged in federal court and upheld as a lawful exercise of ATF’s authority under the Gun Control Act.

Demand Letter 1 was challenged in 2001 in the Fourth Circuit in RSM, Inc., v. Buckles. The plaintiff, a licensed dealer in Baltimore, Maryland, challenged the ATF letter requiring him to submit his acquisition and disposition records for the past three years to ATF, claiming that it violated the Gun Control Act, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, appropriations restrictions and the Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court held that the letter violated the Gun Control Act and permanently enjoined ATF from enforcing the letter. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the Gun Control Act does not prohibit ATF from requiring that records of federal firearms licensees be sent to the agency when directed to do so by letter. The court noted the statute does not give ATF “an unbounded delegation of authority to request record information,” for any purpose. Moreover, the court cautioned that the demand letter authority cannot be used in a “backdoor effort” by ATF to establish a firearms registry. The court noted that because ATF issued Demand Letter 1 to only 41 licensees who failed to comply with statutory trace requests, it was a narrowly tailored program that is consistent with its authority under the statute. The court also held that the program did not require notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act because the delegation of authority to the National Tracing Center was not a substantive rule requiring such process.

Demand Letter 2 was challenged and upheld in 2003 in the Fourth Circuit. In Blaustein & Reich, Inc. v. Buckles, a licensee in Norfolk, Virginia, challenged Demand Letter 2 on the basis that it exceeded ATF’s authority under the statute and that the criteria used to identify licensees for the program were arbitrary and capricious. The licensee also claimed that collection of the information from the 450 licensees subject to Demand Letter 2 resulted in creation of a national firearms registry. The District Court granted summary judgment to the government, and the licensee appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fourth Circuit rejected all of the licensee’s arguments, holding that the demand letter provision of the Gun Control Act expressly gives ATF authority to require limited information from a licensee’s records and is not limited to issuing demand letters in connection with a criminal investigation or to noncompliant licensees. The court also rejected the contention that the program amounts to creating a national registry of firearms. The court noted that ATF regulations referencing demand letters were first issued in 1968, predating the restriction imposed by the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) on adopting rules or regulations that require licensee records be transferred to an ATF facility. The regulations also predate the language added to the statute by FOPA on establishing a system of registration. Similarly, the court held that the Demand Letter Program did not violate an appropriations restriction on centralizing or consolidating licensee records. The court noted that the plain meaning of “centralizing or consolidating” does not prohibit ATF from the mere collection of “limited information.” Because Demand Letter 2 was sent to less than 1 percent of all licensees and requested only a portion of their records, the court held there was no violation of the appropriations restriction.

Demand Letter 2 was also challenged and upheld in 2007 in the Ninth Circuit. In J&G Sales Ltd. V. Truscott, the plaintiff challenged Demand Letter 2 on essentially the same grounds as the plaintiff in Blaustein & Reich. The District Court held that the Demand Letter was an unlawful request for the licensee’s records because it was beyond the scope of the Gun Control Act. The government appealed. The Ninth Circuit held that the plain language of the demand letter provision of the Gun Control Act gave ATF the authority to issue the letter. The court noted the letter was sent to a small fraction of FFLs and sought only a limited subset of information regarding a limited subset of firearms. The court found that the narrow scope of the program clearly avoided the prohibition on establishing a national firearms registry. The court also agreed with the Fourth Circuit that the prohibition on prescribing new rules or regulation after FOPA that require licensee records to be transferred to a government facility was not violated. The court held that the letter at issue was not a “rule” affected by the restriction. Finally, the court held that the criteria ATF used for determining which licensees would receive Demand Letter 2 were not arbitrary and capricious.

Demand Letter 3 was challenged and upheld in the District Court for the District of Columbia in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Jones. The primary basis for the challenge was that requiring the multiple sale reports for rifles to be sent to ATF amounted to creation of a national firearms registry. The court granted summary judgment to ATF, holding that the Demand Letter Program was a lawful, careful balance between ATF’s authority to regulate firearms and the right to privacy held by lawful firearms owners.

Demand Letter 3 was also addressed in 2013 by the Fifth Circuit in 10 Ring Precision, Inc. v. Jones, and by the Tenth Circuit in 2014 in Ron Peterson Firearms, LLC v. Jones. Both Courts of Appeal upheld Demand Letter 3 as a valid exercise of ATF’s authority under the Gun Control Act.

Conclusion

ATF’s authority to require licensees to submit information from their required records through the Demand Letter Program is well established in law. As long as ATF continues to use its authority to require limited information from licensee records for valid law enforcement purposes, the agency is likely to continue to succeed in defending its use of this authority in federal court. Licensees who receive Demand Letter 1, Demand Letter 2 or Demand Letter 3 should comply with the reporting requirements specified in the letter. Failure to comply may result in ATF issuing a notice of proposed revocation for the licensee’s federal firearms licenses.

The information contained in this article is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as legal advice or as legal opinion. You should not rely or act on any information contained in this article without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Receipt of this article does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

About the authors

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (www.reevesdola.com). For more than 10 years she has dedicated her practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and U.S. export controls.

Teresa Ficaretta is one of the country’s foremost experts on ATF regulations under the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, the Arms Export Control Act and federal explosives laws. Before joining Reeves & Dola in 2013, Teresa served as legal counsel to ATF for 26 years, followed by two years as Deputy Assistant Director in Enforcement Programs and Services. They can be reached at 202-683-4200.

I write this article in November 2016, just after the “surprise” election of Donald J. Trump to the Presidency of the United States. However, you are reading this as the March edition of Small Arms Review magazine. We are a few weeks into Trump’s presidency, and I am sure that expectations are running high. I share those expectations because it is highly possible that the Second Amendment community, in general, and the NFA community, in particular, may gain a more respected seat at the table of legislation and regulation. Expectations, though, must be tempered with the reality of political expediency. And now is the time to start applying effort to the foundation-building work that needs to be done in a coordinated and orchestrated effort of the entire community. Now is not the time to pour gasoline on the fire of extremists with unrealistic expectations.

The NFATCA would gladly support the repeal of 18 USC §922(o), the so-called Hughes amendment. Contrary to Internet myth and lore, there is no good old boys club trying to protect the value of collections. Abolishing Hughes, through whatever means, would be good for the entire NFA community and would put more lawful weapons in more hands. Some common weapons would take a modest value hit. But the overall market would surge, and that would be good for everyone. However, is it realistic to think that our Congress, with its thin Republican majority, is willing to risk its limited political coin on a relatively small constituency in order to bring §922(o) repeal to Trump’s desk?

The NFATCA gladly supports the Herculean efforts shouldered by the American Suppressor Association in shepherding the Hearing Safety Act (HSA) through the Congressional gauntlet. It is a fantastic start to addressing a real need in our community. It is an example of how the effort begins and gives insight into how much effort is needed to gain victory. Many self-appointed Internet heroes began dousing the fire of progress the day after the election. Those same folks are likely continuing their efforts to deride the HSA while propping up their own agendas. The HSA, whether it succeeds now or later, provides a bona fide road map for success—first for suppressors and then for other weapons that should not be so severely regulated. The NFATCA will continue to offer its public support and appreciation for the American Suppressor Association’s efforts, and we ask you to do the same.

The NFATCA encourages support for a Presidential action that enables what is already the law of the land: amnesty registration and bringing more lawful weapons into the light of day, making more weapons available for lawful sale and transfer. President Trump: Tell your new Attorney General to make it happen! There are certainly obstacles in the path of this effort, though. And there are questions as to exactly what another amnesty registration could look like. However, these obstacles and scenarios are already known quantities and could be professionally dealt with through the concerted efforts of those with the skill and experience to make it happen. The NFATCA is already on that path. Please join us as a new member or renew your membership today at www.nfatca.org.