On April 26, 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) published Final Rule 2021R-05F (the “Final Rule”) overhauling the definition of firearm “frame or receiver” and amending the marking requirements for firearms. ATF published the Final Rule almost a year after it released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) (86 FR 27720 (May 21, 2021)). As we explained last year in our 2-part alert, this new rule will significantly change ATF’s regulations implementing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), and the import provisions of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), and is the first major change to the definitions of “firearm” and “frame or receiver” since ATF first promulgated regulations implementing Title I of the GCA in 1968.

The Final Rule takes effect on August 24, 2022. To help you prepare for these changes, we are putting out a multi-part alert highlighting key aspects of the Final Rule and recommended practices to adapt to the regulatory changes. To begin, this Part 1 will review the new definition of “frame or receiver.” In Part 2 we will review the new definition of “Privately Made Firearm” and the related controls. Part 3 will examine the changes to the firearm marking and licensee recordkeeping requirements.

I. An Overview of the New Definition “Frame or Receiver”

A. Structure

The Final Rule creates a new § 478.12 to house the definition of “frame or receiver”. The structure of the definition is different from what ATF originally proposed in the NPRM because of the high number of comments expressing concern over the convoluted structure originally presented. The regulations implementing the National Firearms Act and the Arms Export Control Act, 27 C.F.R. Parts 479 and 447 respectively, will also be revised to cross-reference the new definition of “frame or receiver” in 27 C.F.R. § 478.12.

The definition includes several examples to illustrate the following: (1) grandfathered prior classifications; (2) which part of common firearm models is the frame or receiver; and (3) partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver that would be considered a frame or receiver because it can be readily completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to a functional state.

A new term that will play an important role in firearm and frame or receiver classifications is “readily,” which is added to §§ 478.11 and 479.11. “Readily” is part of the statutory definition of “firearm,” which includes a weapon that will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile, and also the ‘‘frame’’ or ‘‘receiver’’ of any such weapon. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A), (B). However, ATF has never defined the term until now. ATF first introduced “readily” in the NPRM and received many comments in opposition to the definition. Nevertheless, only minor changes have been made to the term in the Final Rule. “Readily” will play a very important role in determining whether a frame or receiver has been destroyed, and in classifications of partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers.

B. Single Housing or Structural Component

One of the key changes made to the definition of “frame or receiver” was to center the definition around only one housing or structural component for a given type of weapon. ATF made this change in response to comments, and it is a marked improvement over the NPRM, which referenced “any housing for any fire control component.”

The Final Rule also creates three distinct sub-definitions. One is for “frame,” which applies to handguns and handgun variants. ‘‘Receiver’’ applies to rifles, shotguns, or projectile weapons other than handguns. The third sub-definition is for frame or receiver applicable to firearm mufflers and silencers.

C. Prior Classifications

To ensure that industry members and others can rely on ATF’s prior classifications, the Final Rule grandfathers most prior ATF classifications, and variants thereof, into the new definition of “frame or receiver.” The Final Rule also provides examples and diagrams of some of those weapons, such as the AR-15 rifle and Ruger Mark IV pistol.

CAUTION! ATF classifications of partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers as not falling within the definition of firearm “frame or receiver” prior to this rule ARE NOT GRANDFATHERED! Any such classifications, including parts kits, would need to be resubmitted for evaluation. The resubmission should include any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials that are sold, distributed, or possessed with the item or kit, or otherwise made available by the seller or distributor of the item or kit to the purchaser or recipient of the item or kit. ATF will take this into consideration when making the classification determination.

If persons remain unclear which specific portion of a weapon or device falls within the definitions of “frame” or “receiver,” then they may voluntarily submit a request to ATF Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch for a classification determination.

II. Working with the New Definition of “Frame or Receiver”

Despite the changes to the structure of “frame or receiver” in the Final Rule, the definition is dense and includes several paragraphs and subparagraphs. This style of regulatory structure can be challenging to work through, so we provide an order of review to help guide you through the new definition.

Rather than trying to swallow this definition whole (danger, choking hazard), we offer the following yes/no questions to determine which portion of the “frame or receiver” definition applies to your firearm or part. As you review these questions, we recommend having the complete new § 478.12 handy for cross-referencing purposes, especially because our approach does not follow the strict order of the definition in the hopes of creating a more digestible flow.

Question 1: Is your frame or receiver melted, crushed, shredded, or cut according to ATF-approved methods?

☐ NO – proceed to Question 2.
☐ YES – your item is “destroyed” and is not a controlled “frame” or “receiver” pursuant to § 478.12(e).

Notes:

• The term “destroyed” means the frame or receiver has been permanently altered such that it may not “readily” (see new definition in §§ 478.11 and 479.11) be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver (defined in § 478.12(a)).
• Destruction can be accomplished by completely melting, crushing, or shredding the frame or receiver, or torch cutting according to ATF specifications.

Question 2: Is your piece a blank or a disassembled, partially complete, or nonfunctional frame or receiver?

☐ NO – proceed to Question 3.
☐ YES – refer to § 478.12(c) to determine whether it is a controlled frame or receiver. If it is designed to or may “readily” be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver, it is controlled as a frame or receiver (defined in § 478.12(a)).

Notes:

• “Readily” is a new defined term in § 478.11.
• What is not considered a frame or receiver: forging, casting, printing, extrusion, unmachined body, or similar article that has not yet reached a stage of manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon, for example an unformed block of metal, liquid polymer, or other raw material.
• § 478.12(c) contains examples to show what could be considered a controlled frame or receiver compared to what may not rise to the level of control.
• Prior ATF classification letters concerning partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers, including parts kits: If you have an ATF classification letter issued prior to April 26, 2022, ruling the partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a parts kit, was not, or did not include, a firearm frame or receiver (either under the old § 478.11 or old § 479.11), this letter is no longer valid. If your business involves such items, whether it is importing, selling/transferring, or acquiring for use in further manufacturing and assembly operations, you should consider obtaining a new classification determination from ATF under the new rules. When issuing a classification, ATF may consider any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials that are sold, distributed, or possessed with the item or kit, or otherwise made available by the seller or distributor of the item or kit to the purchaser or recipient of the item or kit. See § 478.12(f)(2).

Question 3: Did ATF issue a classification determination ruling on which part of the firearm is the controlled frame or receiver before April 22, 2022?

☐ NO – proceed to Question 4.
☐ YES – refer to § 478.12(f)(1). Such determination is grandfathered in and remains valid under the new definitions. These firearms are exempt from the new definitions and the marking requirements under the Final Rule.

Notes:

• This question is not for partially complete, disassembled or nonfunctional frames or receivers. For these items, refer to Question 2.
• Any such part marked with an “importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number” (new definition added to § 478.11) is presumed to be the controlled frame or receiver of the weapon unless there is an official ATF determination or other reliable evidence showing that such part is not the frame or receiver.
• Some examples of such prior determinations include: (i) AR-15/M-16 variant firearms; (ii) Ruger Mark IV pistol; (iii) Benelli 121 M1 shotgun; and (iv) Vickers/Maxim, Browning 1919, M2 and box-type machine guns and semi-automatic “variants” (defined in § 478.12(a)(3)).

Question 4: Is it a firearm muffler or silencer? Refer to § 478.11 for the definition of “firearm muffler or silencer.”

☐ NO – proceed to Question 5.
☐ YES – refer to § 478.12(b). For firearm mufflers and silencers, the frame and receiver is the part that provides housing or a structure for the primary internal component designed to reduce the sound of a projectile. The frame or receiver does not include a removable end cap of an outer tube or modular piece.

Notes:

• The Final Rule adds a new definition to § 478.11 for “complete muffler or silencer device” which is important for determining when and what to mark with the required identifying information. We will address this in more detail in Part 3 to our Alert.
• ATF references baffles, baffling material, expansion chamber, or equivalent as the primary internal component designed to reduce the sound of a projectile.
• For the part that provides housing or structure, ATF cites to an outer tube or modular piece.
• If the firearm muffler or silencer is modular, the frame or receiver means the principal housing attached to the weapon that expels a projectile, even if an adapter or other attachments are required to connect the part to the weapon.

Question 5: Is it a “frame” (for handguns) or a “receiver” (for rifles, shotguns, and other weapons that expel a projectile other than handguns) not captured by Questions 1-4 above? Refer to § 478.12(a) for the definitions of “frame” and “receiver”.

☐ “Frame” as defined in § 478.12(a)(1).
☐ “Receiver” as defined in § 478.12(a)(2).
☐ Item is a “multi-piece frame or receiver” not captured under 478.12(a). Refer to 478.12(d). (A “multi-piece frame or receiver” is defined as “a frame or receiver that may be disassembled into multiple modular subparts, i.e., standardized units that may be replaced or exchanged.” It does not include an internal frame of a pistol that is a complete removable chassis that provides housing for the energized component, unless the chassis itself may be disassembled.)
☐ None of the above. Item is not a “frame or receiver” under the new definition. If after performing this analysis doubt remains as to the proper classification, or which specific portion of a weapon or device falls within the definitions of “frame” or “receiver,” you may voluntarily submit a request to the ATF Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch for a classification determination.

Notes:

• “Variants” and “variants thereof” are defined in § 478.12(a)(3)).
• § 478.12(a)(4) lists several examples of common firearm models and “variants thereof” with illustrations showing which part is the frame or receiver under the new definition. The examples listed are: (i) hinged or single framed revolvers; (ii) hammer-fired semi-automatic pistols; (iii) Glock variant striker-fired semi-automatic pistols; (iv) Sig Sauer P250/P320 variant semiautomatic pistols (internal removable chassis; distinguished from a multi-piece frame unless the chassis can be disassembled); (v) bolt action rifles; (vi) break action, lever action, or pump action rifles and shotguns; (vii) AK variant firearms; (viii) Steyr AUG variant firearms; (ix) Thompson machine guns and semi-automatic variants, and L1A1, FN FAL, FN FNC, MP38, MP40, and SIG 550 firearms, and HK machine guns and semi-automatic variants; and (x) Sten, Sterling, and Kel-Tec SUB-2000 firearms.

III. Conclusion

This concludes part 1 of our Alert on ATF’s new definition for “frame or receiver”. Part 2 will address the impact of the Final Rule on “privately made firearms.”

The above alert is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be construed or used as legal advice. Receipt of this alert does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Questions about this alert may be directed to Johanna Reeves: 202-715-9941, jreeves@reevesdola.com.

The National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association has always endeavored to work cooperatively with all of the moving pieces of the National Firearms Act (NFA) community in order to make more NFA opportunities available to more people, more often.  This is not an easy path to travel.  And even though one of our most ardent supporters describes us as “surprisingly effective,” we know that much of what we do is a long, slow, sometimes painful process. Time to finish can be measured in years and decades.

One of our very first major accomplishments was the NFA Handbook. Way back in 2007, it became painfully clear to the Board of Directors of NFATCA that the general public was having a difficult time understanding all the meanings and implications of the ocean of regulations that concern NFA. We also acknowledged that there was a certain amount of shortcoming from the regulators themselves in their understanding, as well. The idea was floated to embark upon a comprehensive review of all of the relevant regulation, execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ATF to begin working cooperatively and create a handbook that was less legalese and more plain English. Most folks thought us to be just few slices short of a full loaf on this project.

But we stuck with it. Lots of meetings. Lots of drafts and reviews. The lawyers stepped in and out of the project… Yet we kept at it. And in 2007 we published the very first guidebook titled ATF National Firearms Act Handbook, or “NFA Handbook,” for short. It was an immediate success. It won a significant amount of praise from collectors, dealers, manufacturers, and importers and even the ATF and Department of Justice. It became the go-to reference for making sense out of the world of NFA. It was also intensely gratifying to learn that Industry Operations Investigators (IOI’s) were using the reference in their day to day to activities. The success of the roll out was so profound that NFATCA formally presented the ATF with the publication and they, in turn, made it an official publication with the official designation of document 5320.8.

Like everything having to do with government regulation, the world of NFA continued to change. A few minor updates of the NFA Handbook were released, but those updates dried up fairly quickly. The NFA Handbook withstood many different White House administrations, but stayed substantially the same.  There was a desire to do comprehensive updates. Unfortunately, a lack of resources and several government restrictions on the publication of new “guidance” meant that the NFA Handbook had grown a bit stale. The NFA Handbook was in desperate need of an overhaul and it showed. The NFATCA dutifully offered many times a year to execute a new MOU and once again work cooperatively to get the updates and revisions put together and published. As many know, these types of effort are often akin to watching dry paint fade.

Yet the NFATCA kept at it. We are used to being told “no” or being told that we would revisit the issue in a few months, or next year. We knew how important the issue was. ATF knew how important the issue was. All that was needed was a perfect storm of opportunity to get the ball rolling again. January 17, 2022 was the date that things changed. It was a very long time since there had been ATF industry meetings at SHOT Show. Travel restrictions resulting from COVID were something that nobody had contemplated, yet the 2022 meetings were a go. NFATCA held a comprehensive and productive meeting with ATF senior management (while wearing masks and social distancing, of course). Once again, NFATCA brought up the desperate need for a significant NFA Handbook update  This time, we were not rebuffed! ATF committed to getting the project rolling in the short term and assigned a senior chief to oversee the endeavor. We already have a lot of notes for needed changes and updates. We know that you have ideas, too. Please send any NFA Handbook updates and suggestions to us at info@nfatca.org so that we can make sure that everyone has a voice!

The NFATCA will continue working for you on this project and many others. We all will benefit from progress, and we will stay focused on the long road. We encourage you to support us financially with memberships and donations. You can sign up online at nfatca.org. Please do so today!

A year ago, I offered the possibility that Biden may end up being the first president in a long time to successfully implement sweeping gun control measures (see “Biden’s Plans for Gun Control Reform,” Small Arms Review, Vol. 25, No. 5.) Such reform can come out of the Congress in the form of new laws (such as enhanced background checks or restricting sales at gun shows), or out of the executive branch with new agency rules or regulations. For the time being, Congress appears to be stalled in passing any kind of gun legislation, and as we get closer to the midterm elections, it is highly unlikely we will see any change on that front.

The power of federal agencies to implement gun control measures is a different story. We’ve already seen proposed rulemaking come out of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) targeting pistol braces and expanding controls over partially made frames and receivers. While ATF has not yet finalized those rules, the agency is in the process of reviewing the public comments and is working toward finalizing the rules sometime in late summer and early fall, respectively.

In the meantime, there is a “zero tolerance policy” that is sneaking up on the industry for which people need to be prepared. President Biden first announced the policy last June as part of a larger gun control strategy (Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime and Ensure Public Safety, White House Briefing Room, Jun. 23, 2021, available at whitehouse.gov). That strategy delineated five main goals: stem the flow of firearms used to commit violence, including by holding rogue firearms dealers accountable for violating federal laws; support local law enforcement with federal tools and resources to help address summer violent crime; invest in evidence-based community violence interventions; expanding summer programming employment opportunities, and other services and supports for teenagers and young adults; and help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully reenter their communities.

Under the first goal of stemming the flow of firearms used to commit violence, the president declared a policy of zero tolerance for “rogue gun dealers that willfully violate the law.” Under this policy, Biden stated that ATF will seek to revoke licenses of dealers the first time they willfully violate federal law by doing any of the following: transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, fail to run a required background check,  falsify records, such as a firearms transaction form, fail to respond to an ATF trace request, or refuse to permit ATF to conduct an inspection. And only one instance of any of the above violations is necessary to trigger a license revocation.

These are not empty threats, as evidenced by the large amounts of funding the Biden administration is devoting to reducing gun crime, including prosecution of the referenced rogue dealers. So far, $350 billion has been made available from the American Rescue Plan for enforcement efforts. The president’s fiscal year 2022 budget request sought $9.4 billion for violent crime, gun violence, and police, an 8.9 percent increase over fiscal year 2021. It included an additional $45 million for ATF to support doubling ATF’s capacity to investigate thefts from federally licensed firearms dealers. The president’s fiscal year 2022 budget, if enacted, would increase the number of ATF industry operations investigators assigned to conduct inspections, identify security vulnerabilities, and respond to thefts at federally licensed firearms dealers. Justice Department Fact Sheet on Violent Crime Reduction (available at justice.gov).

We know that ATF is in the process of implementing this zero-tolerance policy. On January 3, 2022, the agency published a revised Federal Firearms Licensee Quick Reference and Best Practices Act (ATF Publication 5300.15). This guide, more than thirty pages long, puts dealers on notice up front with the following proclamation: “To maximize public safety, ATF will, absent extraordinary circumstances, initiate proceedings to revoke the license of any dealer that has committed a willful regulatory violation of the Gun Control Act (GCA) for specified violations. These violations are: Transferring a firearm to a prohibited person; failing to run a required background check: falsifying records, such as a firearms transaction form; failing to respond to an ATF tracing request; or refusing to permit ATF to conduct an inspection in violation of the law.” ATF does not offer what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, but it is apparent that the dealer would have the burden under this policy to establish a fact that would justify ATF not pursuing license revocation.

Unfortunately, this policy can significantly undermine the important cooperating relationship between industry and the government. Firearms licensees can be a valuable resource to law enforcement because of their direct dealings with the public and their knowledge of the community. If license revocations increase because of this zero-tolerance policy, which they are sure to do, dealers and other licensees may be more reluctant to go to ATF or other law enforcement. Yes, the Justice Department has announced that self-reporting of noncompliance and other proactive behavior will be rewarded, but that may not be enough to allay fears of “ma and pa” dealer becoming the target of enforcement themselves. Indeed, we may see more and more people talking themselves out of voluntarily disclosing violations because, well, what are the odds ATF will find out? Will the reward be worth the risk?

Dealers and other licensees who engage in over-the-counter firearm transfers take note. Now is the time to make sure your house is in order. Review your existing policies and procedures on transfers, recordkeeping, and responding to ATF trace requests, and make sure your employees are educated on the regulatory requirements and restrictions applicable to your business, and then be proactive in ensuring the proper procedures are followed.

This Administration will not let up. Most recently, during his State of the Union address, President Biden made it clear that he has not lost his focus on gun control.

I will do everything in my power to crack down on gun trafficking of ghost guns you can buy online, assemble at home. No serial numbers. Cannot be traced. I asked Congress to pass proven measures to reduce gun violence. Pass universal background checks.

Why should anyone on a terrorist list be able to purchase a weapon? Why? Why?

And folks, ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines with 100 rounds. You think the deer are wearing Kevlar vests? Repeal the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in America that cannot be sued. The only one. Imagine had we done that with the tobacco manufacturers. These laws do not infringe on the Second Amendment. They save lives.

Barely into his second year of his presidency, there can be little doubt that when it comes to gun control, Biden is just getting started.

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.

About the author

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (reevesdola.com). For more than 17 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. Since 2016 she has served as a member of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG). From 2011 through 2020, Johanna served as Executive Director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (FAIR) Trade Group and she continues to serve in an advisory role. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.

“He went to the wall so many times for this NFA community that I wondered how he did not bloody his forehead.”

Almost twenty years ago saw a group of like-minded individuals get together with a goal of trying to simplify the world of National Firearms Act weapons and make more opportunities available for more people, more often. John Brown, Dan Shea, Teresa Starnes, John Tibbetts, and Bob Landies began what would become known as the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (NFATCA). John Brown was elected president of the organization and would serve in that capacity for the life of the organization. John brought a can-do attitude to the job and was determined to figure out a way to work with ATF instead of against it so that all could benefit. John, and the NFATCA, was enormously successful.

John K Brown, III passed away on January 7, 2022 after a sobering fight with cancer. He leaves behind a wife, children, and grandchildren. He leaves behind a legacy of accomplishment and success. He leaves behind accolades, memories, victories and partnerships. His passing also leaves holes in many hearts.

I joined the NFATCA almost 15 years ago. John and I became immediate friends and he asked me to take over the day-to-day duties of running the organization; the under-the-hood stuff so that he could focus on the relationships and the building of programs. Done. John was a demanding boss and the style suited me just fine. What I was quite unaware of was that John was also doing something under-the-hood himself. John had noticed something in my world, a missing piece, as it were. Without fanfare or even acknowledgement, John began to fill the role of father in my life. Friends share and John learned of the lack of a real father figure in my world. And John stepped right into that role without me even noticing. At least, not in the beginning. Sure, he answered business questions. Yes, we developed business plans, strategies, and tactics, and dreamed up ambitious goals and ways to get things done. But slowly and deliberately, John provided me the paternal resource that had been missing in my life. It was a really big deal.

John was a father to his own children, treating each one in the way that he believed suited them best. He did that for me, even though I was not his natural son. The truth is that there really was no way for it to be more natural. To put it plainly: I am a better person for having John as my father. He was stern, he was giving. He was passionate and generous. He gave of himself until it hurt. He went to the wall so many times for this NFA community that I wondered how he did not bloody his forehead. And, even when some folks thought John was bad for us, he stood fast and always did the right thing. He knew that the real win was never in the short game. Getting rid of the dreaded CLEO signature requirement and leveling the playing field? Some screamed that NFATCA was killing the industry. John knew better. He knew there would be a small, temporary dip. But he also knew that the dip would be followed by a surge that would see even more growth of NFA ownership at an even faster pace. He was right. He almost always was. And when he wasn’t, he owned those mistakes.

John served his wife, his family, his country, and this community. He became ill and fought a battle that none of us should have to wage. I stood by his side and tried to serve him the way he had taught me. Upon hearing the news of his passing, I debated cancelling the NFATCA presence at SHOT Show. I immediately heard John’s voice imploring me to, “suck it up, Buttercup!” I knew that I could not abandon John’s dream, his mission. I went to SHOT. I delivered many eulogies and shared in many celebrations of his life. Each time, even though the desert was dry, I found that I had more tears to give because of the awful hole in my heart. John touched many lives, and he will most certainly be missed. If memories are blessings, then we shall all certainly have an abundance. Please join me in thinking about John and offering a prayer of peace to those who loved him. The NFATCA will continue to be his enduring legacy.

On January 19, 2022, the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (FAIR) Trade Group hosted its annual membership meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada. It was a full house, with people coming together to hear legal and policy updates from federal regulators, and to discuss the challenges facing the firearms and ammunition industries domestically and abroad. Present were top officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, and members representing a cross-section of industry, from the collector to the big defense contractor. It was a highly productive meeting and very well received. The following is a rundown of the issues discussed.

ATF Updates

After introductory remarks from FAIR’s new Executive Director, Michael Faucette, and its president, Charles Fowler, ATF took the floor to discuss recent updates and policy clarifications. Alphonso Hughes, the Assistant Director of ATF’s Office of Enforcement Programs and Services, kicked off the session by introducing the top officials present from the following branches and divisions of ATF:

• Firearms and Explosives Industry Division
• Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division
• Firearms and Explosives Services Division
• Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch
• National Firearms Act Division
• Office of Regulatory Affairs
• Office of Legal Counsel

ATF addressed the following questions and topics of interest from F.A.I.R. members:

Clarification of the role between the Department of State and ATF on imports and foreign policy questions. 

A little background is helpful to appreciate the question and understand ATF’s answer. The U.S. government controls firearms and ammunition imports primarily through two statutes, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), but the underlying policies and Congress’s motivations in passing these two statutes are quite different. In the years preceding the GCA’s passage, U.S. firearms manufacturers lobbied Congress, primarily Thomas Dodd, Senator from Connecticut, for a legislative remedy to the growing competition the industry was facing from imports of inexpensive foreign surplus military firearms. Thanks in large part to this effort, the GCA has a general prohibition on the importation of any firearm or ammunition. See generally, David T. Hardy, “The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act: A Historical and Legal Perspective,” 17 Cumb. L. Rev. 585-682 (1986). Other than imports by federal, state, or local government agencies, there are only four types of firearm or ammunition imports permitted under the GCA: imports for scientific or research purposes; imports of unserviceable firearms (except machineguns) imported as curios or museum pieces; return of U.S. goods; and finally, imports of firearms and ammunition meeting the sporting purposes test (except NFA firearms and surplus military firearms).

Comparatively, the AECA came about out of the desire for world peace. “[A]n ultimate goal of the United States continues to be a world which is free from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments; in which the use of force has been subordinated to the rule of law; and in which international adjustments to a changing world are achieved peacefully. In furtherance of that goal, it remains the policy of the United States to encourage regional arms control and disarmament agreements and to discourage arms races,” from 22 U.S.C. Ch. 39, § 2751. The controls over arms exports and imports is presented in section 2778, which gives the president the authority to control the export and import of defense articles and defense services “in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States,” as stated in 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1). By way of executive order, the president has delegated the authority to enforce the statute to various agencies. For the permanent import of defense articles, authority is vested with the attorney general, who in turn has delegated these functions to the ATF. The executive order instructs the attorney general to be “guided by the views of the Secretary of State on matters affecting world peace, and the external security and foreign policy of the United States.” Furthermore, any changes to designations of items or categories of items considered defense articles subject to the AECA permanent import controls must also be made with the concurrence of the secretary of state and the secretary of defense and with notice to the secretary of commerce. E.O. 13637, 78 Fed. Reg. 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013).

Since the first days of implementation of the AECA, firearms and ammunition have been classified as “defense articles” and therefore subject to ATF permitting requirements for permanent imports. In addition, the ATF regulations implementing the permanent import provisions of the AECA have always specified that “the administration of the provisions of this part will be subject to the guidance of the Secretaries of State and Defense on matters affecting world peace and the external security and foreign policy of the United States.” 27 C.F.R. § 447.55.

But what can be confusing to industry is the extent to which ATF involves the State Department in its implementation of the AECA import controls. At the F.A.I.R. meeting, ATF cited to the regulations and executive order 13637 (above) and confirmed that it consults with the State Department on import cases involving the Russian sanctions and proscribed countries, including the Voluntary Restraint Agreement (VRA) with Russia. More specifically, the following policies were reviewed:

• Russia Sanctions – the U.S. government utilizes economic and trade sanctions against other countries, individuals, or entities to force a change in policies. In August 2021, the State Department and the Treasury Department announced a new round of sanctions against Russia on the one-year anniversary of the poisoning of Russian lawyer and opposition figure Alexei Navalny. These sanctions included a minimum 12-month restriction on the permanent importation of firearms and ammunition manufactured or located in Russia pursuant to new or pending import applications. Subsequently, pursuant to State Department direction, ATF began denying Form 6 applications to permanently import firearms or ammunition manufactured or located in Russia on September 7, 2021. At the F.A.I.R. meeting, ATF stated that the only Russian firearms or ammunition that can be imported are those listed on permits issued prior to September 7, 2021. There is no exception for curios or relics stored in a non-proscribed country or area. The Biden administration will reevaluate these sanctions after one year.

• Proscribed Country Policy for Imports (27 C.F.R. § 447.52) – ATF clarified that State Department modifications to the list of proscribed countries in the International Traffic in Arms (22 C.F.R. § 126.1) does not automatically impact the list of proscribed countries in ATF’s list in section in section 447.52. In fact, ATF will not initiate any changes to country policies unless and until the State Department officially directs it in writing to do so. This includes making changes to the list of approved firearms under the Voluntary Restraint Agreement.

Third Party Transfers of U.S. – Origin firearms – do firearms now controlled for export under the Commerce regulations still require State Department retransfer approval?

ATF explained that the requirement for State Department retransfer approval stems from statutes that compel such prior authorization whenever there is a transfer, change in end-use or destination not previously identified in the original acquisition. This requirement extends to firearms and ammunition originally exported through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program, grants under the Military Assistance Program (MAP), and direct commercial sales. The foreign government wishing to sell such articles to U.S. importers should first obtain the retransfer authorization from the appropriate State Department office in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM). The Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers (PM-RSAT) handles retransfers of government-to-government sales and grant-origin defense articles, while exports of direct commercial sales are handled by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). The appropriate retransfer authorization should be obtained prior to submitting the Form 6 import permit application to ATF.

What firearm operations can occur in a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ)?

ATF explained that all U.S. laws apply to operations in an FTZ, which means that firearms may not be manufactured in an FTZ pursuant to the GCA and the NFA restrictions. Firearms can be stored in an FTZ (no addition of parts, no manipulation, except repackaging is permissible). ATF would allow destruction and disassembly of firearms, but it is important to point out that pursuant to the Department of Commerce rules on FTZ operations, activities involving destruction of firearms must be approved in advance by the Commerce Department’s FTZ Board (the FTZ Board defines any process that results in a change to Customs import classification as requiring prior clearance from the board).

Firearms may be transferred between FTZs, but approval for the transfer must be obtained from ATF in a letter request.

Is ATF changing the requirements for demonstration letters in support of import applications?

ATF is in the process of preparing a new form that may be used by importers to establish the import is for demonstration to government and law enforcement entities. The date of introduction is not yet determined but is expected to occur in the next few months. The form will include a checklist of requirements along with a penalty of perjury statement to be signed by the licensee and the government entity. The form will be optional, but importers who choose to continue using request letters from law enforcement and government customers are forewarned that ATF will continue to verify the veracity of demonstration letters by contacting the signing officials and superiors.

Information required on the Form 6 Import Permit Application

ATF explained that importers should include the seller and shipper information, if known (blocks 6 and 7 on the application). This information is necessary for ATF to confirm no party to the transaction is subject to sanctions or is otherwise prohibited.

Export Controls Update from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)

After ATF concluded its presentation, BIS officials took the floor and provided attendees with a one-hour update on the firearms and ammunition exports under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). It has been two years since the new export rules governing firearms and ammunition, but industry can always benefit from tips and observations from the regulators. The following is a list of updates and clarifications the BIS officials provided:

Parts Classifications

• Individual magazine parts are EAR99;
• Sear springs for the 1911 are classified as 0A501.x, NOT EAR99;
• Other EAR99 items: shotgun barrels; scope mounts/rails; speed loaders or moon clips; iron sights; front and rear sights; bipods/tripods; shooting sticks; muzzle brakes; compensators; flash hiders and flash suppressors.

Clarification rule for firearms and ammunition

Attendees were reminded that back in August, BIS published a rule that implemented technical corrections to the controls over firearms, ammunition, and related articles no longer subject to the ITAR. This rule took effect on September 20, 2021, and was published in 86 Fed. Reg. 46590 (Aug. 19, 2021)).

Application Tips and Tricks

BIS reiterated that caliber ranges and multiple firearm models can be provided on the export license application (Form BIS 748-P). The risk in being too specific, they explained, is to limit the scope of the license once approved.

Countries of Concern

The following countries are subject to a policy of denial for exports of firearms and ammunition:

• China (includes Hong Kong)
• Russia
• Paraguay (the Paraguayan government has issued a moratorium on firearm imports)
• Guyana (human rights concerns)
• Commercial sales to Guatemala or El Salvador subject to strict scrutiny and may be approved subject to special conditions.
• Philippines
• Trinidad & Tobago
• Brazil – there are concerns over enforcement related to commercial resale transactions because the Commerce Department does not have anyone in country to conduct end-use checks. However, exports to commercial entities may be approved.

BIS also reminded attendees to carefully monitor any country policy changes the State Department initiates through ITAR section 126.1, as these have an immediate impact on the Commerce Country Group D:5. Applications to export firearms or ammunition to any country listed in 126.1 will be denied, even if recent changes are not immediately reflected in Country Group D:5.

Other News

We were saddened to hear of the recent passing of John Brown, who served as the president for the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (NFATCA) since its founding in 2003. Having been in the trade for more than 50 years, John fought hard for the firearms industry through diligence, professionalism and collaboration with the regulators and other industry leaders. Over the years he has had many achievements, including working with the ATF to bring about the NFA Handbook and the elimination of the CLEO signature requirement for NFA transfers. We mourn with his family, his colleagues, and his friends. Rest in peace, John. We will miss you.

In other news, at the end of 2020 I stepped down as FAIR’s executive director and turned the reins over to Michael Faucette. Although it was a difficult decision, after having had the privilege of serving this fantastic organization for almost ten years, I know that great things are in store for the organization and its members. FAIR Trade Group provides an invaluable service to the firearms and ammunition industries. By maintaining its strong relationship with the agencies regulating our businesses and keeping its members informed of policy updates and regulatory changes, FAIR will continue to be the regulatory watchdog and voice for its importer and exporter members. I look forward to continuing to work with FAIR in an advisory role.

***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.

About the author

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (reevesdola.com). For more than 17 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. Since 2016 she has served as a member of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG). From 2011 through 2020, Johanna served as Executive Director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (FAIR) Trade Group and she continues to serve in an advisory role. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.

Back in 2020 I wrote about the judicial decisions which held the California ban on large capacity magazines to be unconstitutional because the ban violated the Second Amendment. See “Federal Court Rules California Ban Violates Second Amendment,” Small Arms Review, Vol. 24 No. 9 (Nov. 2020). The victory was short lived, and this past November, the Ninth Circuit overturned the previous decisions and ruled the LCM ban to be constitutional, revealing once again its distaste for the Second Amendment.

Background

At issue is California Penal Code section 32310, which bans magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition (the so-called large-capacity magazines, or “LCMs”). The law, which California voters approved in November 2016, criminalized any person who possesses an LCM, regardless of the date the LCM was acquired. Current owners of LCMs were required to remove the magazines from the state, sell them to a firearms dealer, surrender them to law enforcement for destruction, or permanently modify the magazine to only accept ten or fewer rounds.

In 2017, shortly before Section 32310 was to go into effect, plaintiffs Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., sued the state’s Attorney General at the time, Xavier Becerra, on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. The federal district court in San Diego granted a preliminary injunction on the grounds that “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.” Duncan v. Becerra, 265 F.Supp.3d 1106 at 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (Duncan I).

Attorney General Becerra appealed the lower court’s injunction to the 9^th Circuit. In the meantime, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment with the district court. In 2019, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held Section 32310 to be unconstitutional in its entirety. Duncan v. Becerra, 366 F.Supp.3d 1131, 1186 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (“Duncan II”). The court’s order prohibited the attorney general, his officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, as well as state and federal law enforcement from enforcing the possession ban under Section 32310. The prohibition against the sale, purchase, manufacture, importation, or acquisition of LCMs remained in effect during the appellate process.

The California Attorney General Becerra appealed the Duncan II decision to the 9^th Circuit, and on August 14, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment. In a 2-1 decision (Judge Lynn dissenting), the panel struck down Section 32310 as unconstitutional because “it severely burdens the core of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.” 970 F.3d 1133, 1163 (9^th Cir. 2020). The panel’s majority found that firearm magazines enjoy Second Amendment protection. “Without a magazine, many weapons would be useless, including ‘quintessential’ self-defense weapons like the handgun…. Put simply, a regulation cannot permissibly ban a protected firearm’s components critical to its operation.” 970 F.3d at 1146 (citing to District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 579, 629 and 630(2008)).

Subsequently, the California Attorney General requested a rehearing before a larger, en banc panel. On February 25, 2021, the circuit court granted the Attorney General’s petition for a rehearing and vacated the three-judge panel’s ruling.

The Ninth Circuit En Banc Hearing and Decision

The case was argued on June 22, 2021 before 11 judges, seven of whom were Clinton and Obama appointees and four were Trump and G.W. Bush appointees. The California Attorney General, who by this time was Rob Bonta (Xavier Becerra had moved on to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Biden administration), argued that Section 32310’s ban on LCMs does not run afoul of the Second Amendment. According to Bonta, Section 32310 did not prevent law-abiding Californians from possessing all sorts of authorized firearms and magazines that would provide them with ample ammunition to defend themselves. Citing a correlation between mass shootings and LCMs, the California Attorney General argued there was a reasonable fit between California’s interest in reducing the number of mass shootings and the resulting casualties and Section 32310.

In a 7-4 decision, the en banc court sided with the California Attorney General and upheld the magazine ban (see Duncan v. Bonta, 19 F.4th 1087 (9^th. Cir. 2021). Addressing the Second Amendment challenge, the court applied a two-step analysis, addressing first whether Section 32310 affects conduct protected by the Second Amendment and if so, what level scrutiny to apply.

Step One: Does the Second Amendment Protect Possession of Large Capacity Magazines?

Recall that one of the key findings of the previous three-judge panel was that magazines enjoy Second Amendment protection. That panel did not find LCMs to be “unusual” arms and had a long history of use and availability in the United States, dating back more than 200 years. That court also cited to statistics showing criminal use of LCMs to be relatively low in comparison to their market saturation.

Before the en banc court, the California Attorney General argued that Section 32310’s ban on LCMs does not implicate the Second Amendment for two reasons: LCMs are most useful in a military setting; and California has a long history of governing magazine capacity and such accepted control does not implicate the Second Amendment.

Rather than addressing head on Attorney General Bonta’s arguments against Second Amendment protection, the majority opinion of the en banc court side steps the issue and assumes without deciding that Section 32310 implicates the Second Amendment.  

Step Two: What Level Scrutiny Should be Applied?

When determining whether a law is constitutional, courts will usually apply one of three levels of scrutiny: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or a rational basis review. Strict scrutiny, as the name implies, is the highest level of scrutiny a court can apply and requires the government to prove a compelling state interest behind the law and that the law or regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve the result. Courts apply strict scrutiny when a “fundamental right” is threatened by a law.

Intermediate scrutiny requires the government show the law serves an important government objective and is substantially related to achieving the objective. Under both the strict and intermediate scrutiny approaches, the government bears the burden of satisfying the test.

Rational basis review is the lowest level of scrutiny and requires the person challenging the law (as opposed to the government) to show that the government has no legitimate interest in the law or that there is no reasonable link between the government interest and the challenged law. Under this approach, a court can determine a law to have a rational basis as long as any conceivable, rational basis exists, even if the government does not provide one.

The three-judge panel in Duncan held Section 32310 to be subject to strict scrutiny because Section 32310 threatened the core right of law-abiding citizens to defend hearth and home, and the burden imposed on the core right is substantial. The panel rejected the lesser standard of intermediate scrutiny as a contradiction to the Supreme Court decision in Heller. “[T]he Second Amendment is not a second-class right….Nor is self-defense a dispensation granted at the state’s mercy.” 970 F.3d at 1155 (citing the 2010 Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago).

The en banc court, however, rejected application of strict scrutiny on the grounds that such an approach is applicable only to laws that implicate a core Second Amendment right and place a substantial burden on that right. Here, the court determined that even if Section 32310 implicates the core Second Amendment right of self-defense in the home, the ban on LCMs is only a small burden on that right because the law has no effect on which or how many firearms may be owned, and owners of firearms can possess as many firearms, bullets, and magazines as they choose and may also fire as many bullets as they would like for whatever lawful purpose they choose. “The ban on large-capacity magazines has the sole practical effect of requiring shooters to pause for a few seconds after firing ten bullets, to reload or to replace the spent magazine.” 19 F.4th at 1104.

The court rejected Plaintiffs argument for strict scrutiny, citing experts who report that the use of more than ten bullets in defense of the home is rare or non-existent. “Plaintiffs have not pointed to a single instance in this record (or elsewhere) of a homeowner who was unable to defense himself or herself because of a lack of a large-capacity magazine.” 19 F.4th at 1105.

The en banc court also rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that the Section 32310 ban on LCMs fails under any standards of scrutiny much like the D.C. handgun ban at issue in the Heller case. “The law at issue here does not ban any firearm at all. It bans merely a subset (large-capacity) of a part (a magazine) that some (but not all) firearms use.” 19 F.4th at 1107.

The Ban on LCMs Survives Intermediate Scrutiny

The en banc court determined that California enacted the LCM ban to prevent and mitigate gun violence. “Although mass shootings may be an irregular occurrence, the harm that flows from them is extensive. We readily conclude that reducing the harm caused by mass shootings is an important government objective.” 19F.4th at 1109. The court found that large-capacity magazines allow a shooter to fire more bullets from a single firearm uninterrupted. When the shooter must reload or switch weapons, this pause allows victims to flee and law enforcement to confront the shooter. The en banc court also found that most mass shooters have possessed their weapons and their large-capacity magazines lawfully. Consequently, removing the ability to possess such magazines reasonably supports California’s aim to reduce the harm caused by mass shootings.

The court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that LCMs are important for self-defense. “Plaintiffs and their experts speculate about hypothetical situations in which a person might want to use a large-capacity magazine for self-defense. But Plaintiffs’ speculation, not backed by any real-world examples, comes nowhere near overcoming the deference that we must give to the reasonable legislative judgment, supported by both data and common sense, that large-capacity magazines significantly increase the devastating harm caused by mass shootings and that removing those magazines from circulation will likely reduce deaths and serious injuries.”

Based on these findings, the en banc court concluded that the ban on LCMs is a reasonable fit for the compelling goal of reducing gun violence and thus is not in violation of the Second Amendment. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment takings argument under the reasoning that because Section 32310 allows a person to sell or modify their property, there is no unlawful government taking.

Conclusion

The en banc decision was a severe disappointment to Second Amendment advocates, but it was not surprising given the history of the Ninth Circuit’s approach to Second Amendment cases. As Judge VanDyke points out in his dissent, the Ninth Circuit has a long history of undermining the Second Amendment:

“We are a monstrosity of a court exercising jurisdiction over 20% of the U.S. population and almost one-fifth of the states—including states pushing the most aggressive gun-control restrictions in the nation. By my count, we have had at least 50 Second Amendment challenges since Heller—significantly more than any other circuit—all of which we have ultimately denied. In those few instances where a panel of our court has granted Second Amendment relief, we have without fail taken the case en banc to reverse that ruling. This is true regardless of the diverse regulations that have come before us—from storage restrictions to waiting periods to ammunition restrictions to conceal carry bans to open carry bans to magazine capacity prohibitions—the common thread is our court’s ready willingness to bless any restriction related to guns.”

19F.4th at 1165-1166 (emphasis in original).

Plaintiffs have stated they will file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court to appeal the en banc decision. On December 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs’ motion to stay the mandate, which keeps the status quo while a writ of certiorari is filed. So, for the time being, individuals who lawfully own or possess LCMs can keep them while the case is appealed.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court accepts the case and puts a stop to courts treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right. As Judge VanDyke observed in his dissent (19F.4th at 1161):

“So the majority’s rarity balancing isn’t just lopsided—it starts from the wrong premise. We would never treat fundamental rights we care about this way, particularly those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. We don’t protect the free speech of the taciturn less than the loquacious. We don’t protect the free exercise of religion in proportion to how often people go to church. We wouldn’t even allow soldiers to be quartered only in those parts of your house you don’t use much. Express constitutional rights by their nature draw brighter and more prophylactic lines—precisely because those who recognized them were concerned that people like California’s government and the judges on our court will attempt to pare back a right they no longer find useful.”

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.

About the author

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (www.reevesdola.com). For more than 17 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. Since 2016 she has served as a member of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG). From 2011 through 2020, Johanna served as Executive Director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (F.A.I.R.) Trade Group and she continues to serve in an advisory role. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been continuously improving their automated filing system, eForms, for years. Many of you have experienced the growing pains of eForms as it grew into a usable system that served many needs. As with many government systems, there were, well, challenges. eForms is certainly no exception. As folks learned about the usefulness of the system, more folks started using it. Capacity bred contempt as the system struggled to keep up with an ever-increasing workload. NFATCA worked with ATF to help ameliorate these issues. As an example, the days of Wednesdays being completely off limits for public use are securely in the rearview mirror.

Where are we at today? By now, you should have heard about the introduction of a significant new component of eForms: the Form 4. NFATCA worked diligently with ATF to help bring the electronic version of Form 4 to public use with some very important design features that we think are critical to long term success. eForm 4 has been in use for many months now. Anyone, individual or entity, can use it. At the top of the list is the fact that fingerprints can now be submitted within the application using a secure, FBI-approved, encrypted file format. Photographs can be submitted in the same process and the system validates each step of the application so that mistakes are minimized. The eForms system is also using the Federal government’s pay.gov system so that folks do not have to deal with the cringing mistake of bouncing a check to Uncle Sam (it happens far more often than you think).

eForm 4 was something that the entire NFA community demanded and something that the NFATCA was proud to be a part of. How is it going? Quite well, actually. System capacity is growing and approval time for electronically submitted, complete Form 4’s is dropping. ATF’s stated goal of less than 90 days from start to finish on a “clean” Form 4 is becoming a reality. Have you used it? If not, it may be time for a refresher on how to get set up on eForms. It is not difficult at all.

The first step is to register as an eForms user. Anyone that has registered for anything online should feel comfortable with the registration process that begins at eforms.atf.gov. All of the fields with an asterisk are required entries and certain fields will be automatically populated. The execution of the “Register” button at the bottom of the page will initiate the validation process and the new user should expect to receive emails from ATF in short order regarding the status of the registration.

The next step? Whether you are a federal frearms licensee or an individual, there are a host of forms available, right now, that will make your life easier. Increased accuracy is baked into the system because you are not allowed to move forward in the process with an existing mistake. Speed of approval is increased because you are submitting an accurate application. It makes no difference whether you are using a Form 1, Form 2, Form 3, Form 4… and more! Everyone can benefit from this system, and everyone should be taking advantage today.

The NFATCA would like to tip its virtual hat to the folks at ATF that took the time to listen to us and be responsive to the needs of this community. The work was not easy, and the journey was not short. But we all worked together to do something that truly makes more NFA opportunities available for more people, more often. And now, with faster results! If you would like to join us and support us, we would be honored! www.nfatca.org , info@nfatca.org

On November 3, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen. All eyes are on the Court, as this is the first time in more than 10 years that the justices are examining the Second Amendment protections over self-defense. This case asks the question of whether the state’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

I. Background – New York Law and the Kachalsky Case

New York law makes it a crime to possess any firearm without a license, loaded or unloaded, inside or outside the home. To obtain a license, an individual must be 21 years old or older, of good moral character, without a history of crime or mental illness, and “concerning whom no good cause exists for the denial of the license.”

In addition to the above prerequisites, licenses are limited by place or profession. Licenses to possess a registered handgun in the home or in a place of business by a merchant or storekeeper are granted on a “shall issue” standard. This is also the case for a license for a messenger employed by a banking institution or express company to carry concealed, as well as for certain state and city judges and those employed by a prison or jail.

For anyone else who wishes to carry a firearm, he or she must show “proper cause” for a license to be issued. As New York bans carrying handguns openly, individuals who desire to carry a handgun outside the home but do not fit within one of the employment categories above must demonstrate proper cause.

The New York penal code does not define what constitutes “proper cause,” but state courts have interpreted the term to include carrying a handgun for target practice, hunting, or self-defense. Proper cause for target practice or hunting can be satisfied if the applicant demonstrates “a sincere desire to participate in target shooting and hunting.” This standard is lower than proper cause for self-defense, which requires the applicant to show a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.” If an applicant demonstrates only proper cause to carry a handgun for target practice or hunting, the licensing officer will restrict the carry license to the purposes justifying the issuance.

All conceal carry permit applications are reviewed by licensing officers who have a considerable amount of discretion in deciding whether to grant a license application. i.e., whether the applicant has established proper cause to justify issuance of the conceal carry license. To obtain a conceal carry license without restrictions (not restricted to hunting or target shooting purposes), the standard is very high. According to cases decided over the years, a generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect oneself and property is not sufficient for obtaining an unrestricted carry license, nor is good moral character plus a simple desire to carry a weapon or living or being employed in a high crime area.

“A generalized desireto carry a concealed weapon to protect oneself and property is not sufficient for obtaining an unrestricted carry license.”

In 2012, several individuals and a civil rights association challenged the New York proper cause requirement in the case Kachalsky v. County of Westchester. In that case, multiple individual plaintiffs were denied full-carry concealed handgun licenses for failing to establish proper cause (none of the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate a need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general public). The plaintiffs sued, challenging the constitutionality of the New York proper cause requirement. The District Court ruled against the plaintiffs, concluding that the concealed carrying of handguns in public is outside the core Second Amendment concern articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller (self-defense in the home).

On appeal, the Second Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, finding the Second Amendment protections identified in Heller to be applicable only to the home. When it comes to carrying handguns in public, however, the court found the state to have a compelling interest in public safety and crime prevention. Consequently, the Second Circuit upheld the law on the grounds that it is substantially related to New York’s public safety interests.

II. The NYSRPA Case

In 2018, the NYSRPA, a firearms advocacy organization, and two individuals, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, joined together and filed suit challenging once again the constitutionality of New York’s proper cause standard.

Petitioner Nash, who possessed a license restricted to hunting and target shooting, requested removal of the restrictions so that he may carry a firearm for self-defense. In support of his request, Nash cited to a string of recent robberies in his neighborhood and the fact that he had completed an advanced firearm safety training course. The licensing officer denied Nash’s request in November 2016 for failure to show proper cause because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished him from the general public.

Petitioner Koch obtained his carry license in 2008 and like Nash, his license was restricted to hunting and target shooting. In November 2017, Koch requested removal of the restrictions from his license, citing his extensive experience in the safe handling and operation of firearms and completion of many safety training courses. Koch’s request was denied in January 2018 for failure to show proper cause because he did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished him from the general public.

The parties filed suit in federal district court requesting the court compel defendants (New York licensing authorities) to issue unrestricted carry licenses to Nash and Koch, or otherwise allow them to exercise their right to carry firearms outside the home. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that Kachalsky foreclosed plaintiff’s claims, and the Second Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal. The petitioners then appealed the case to the Supreme Court (also known as filing a writ of certiorari) presenting the following question: whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

On April 26, 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, but narrowed the question to whether New York state’s denial of Nash and Koch’s applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. Citing to history and the text of the Second Amendment, petitioners argue the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to carry arms outside the home for self-defense. Because New York’s restrictive carry regime means that the default is to prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns for self-defense, the state law violates the Second Amendment.

New York’s regime is all the more troubling because the threshold ‘proper cause’ determination is left to the broad discretion of a licensing officer. The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, protects individuals against government actors. Requiring law-abiding individuals to secure the permission of a government official under a highly discretionary standard impermissibly converts a right into a privilege. – Brief for Petitioners at 42.

Respondents, arguing that the Second Amendment does not enshrine an unqualified right to carry concealed firearms in virtually any public place, contend New York has a valid interest in protecting the public and the licensing scheme is consistent with the Constitution.

“New York’s ‘proper cause’ requirement…does not seek to inhibit handgun carrying for lawful self-defense…but rather aims to limit the violence attending handgun misuse.” – Brief for Respondents at 40.

Oral argument took place on November 3, 2021. The attorney for petitioners, Paul Clement, centered on the argument that carrying a gun outside the home for self-defense purposes is a fundamental right enjoyed by citizens in 43 other states. Because it is a constitutional right, it must not be dependent on satisfying a government official that there is a “really good” need to exercise that right, or that there is a need that distinguishes the applicant from the rest of the community. Such a requirement transforms the right into a privilege.

“When it comes to carrying handguns in public, however, the court found the state to have a compelling interest in public safety and crime prevention.”

Distinguishing New York’s law from a government’s legitimate interest in restricting weapons in sensitive places, Clement argued “[i]t is the difference between regulating constitutionally protected activity and attempting to convert a fundamental constitutional right into a privilege that can only be enjoyed by those who can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a government official that they have an atypical need for the exercise of that right. That is not how constitutional rights work.”

Justice Alito asked Clement whether the Court could perhaps approach the sensitive place question in the context of self-defense so that places where the state has taken steps to put security measures in place and obviate the need for self-defense could be viewed as sensitive places. To this, Clement responded, “I worry that if you went in that direction, then the state would say: well, you know, this part of the city, we have a lot of police officers, and so you really don’t need to exercise your own individual self-defense right there because we – we have your back.”

One of the most intriguing parts of oral argument was concerning the role of population density and the Solicitor General of New York’s admission that unrestricted licenses are much more readily available in less densely populated upstate counties than in dense metropolitan areas. Chief Justice Roberts, explaining that the Court in Heller relied on the right to defense as a basis of its reading of the Second Amendment, pointed out the paradox of New York’s policy of issuing permits in less densely populated areas.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “Now I would think that [the need for self-defense] arises in more populated areas. If you’re out in the woods, presumably, it’s pretty unlikely that you’re going to run into someone who’s going to rob you on the street. On the other hand, there are places in a — in a densely populated city where it’s more likely that that’s where you’re going to need a gun for self-defense and, you know, however many policemen are assigned, that, you know, there are high-crime areas. And it seems to me that what you’re saying is that’s probably the last place that someone’s going to get a permit to carry a gun. How is that –regardless of what we think of the policy of that, how is that consistent with Heller’s reasoning that the reason the Second Amendment applies a –a direct personal right is for self-defense?”

In response, General Underwood pointed to a tradition of governments to regulate “most strenuously” in densely populated places. General Underwood explained the rationale for such history, “which is that where there is dense population, there is also the deterrent of lots of people and there is the availability of law enforcement.”

Justice Alito also asked a series of questions on what an ordinary, law-abiding citizen must do to show a need to carry a firearm for self-defense.

JUSTICE ALITO: “So I want you to think about people like this, people who work late at night in Manhattan, it might be somebody who cleans offices, it might be a doorman at an apartment, it might be a nurse or an orderly, it might be somebody who washes dishes. None of these people has a criminal record. They’re all law-abiding citizens. They get off work around midnight, maybe even after midnight. They have to commute home by subway, maybe by bus. When they arrive at the subway station or the bus stop, they have to walk some distance through a high-crime area, and they apply for a license, and they say: Look, nobody has told –has said I am going to mug you next Thursday. However, there have been a lot of muggings in this area, and I am scared to death. They do not get licenses, is that right?”

In response, General Underwood acknowledged this is generally correct if there is nothing “particular” to them, to which Justice Alito asked how this is consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment?

MS. UNDERWOOD: “Because the core right to self-defense doesn’t –as –as this court said, doesn’t allow for all to –to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.”

JUSTICE ALITO: “No, it doesn’t, but does it mean that there is the right to self-defense for celebrities and state judges and retired police officers but pretty much not for the kind of ordinary people who have a real, felt need to carry a gun to protect themselves?”

The majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the New York law in their questioning during oral argument. Although a decision in favor of petitioners could help chip away against the several states who have similar “may issue” licensing schemes for conceal carry, the Court’s ruling will likely be narrowly focused and may not address the broader question of whether the Constitution guarantees an individual the right to carry a firearm outside the home.

The Court will likely issue its decision by summer 2022.

***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.

About the Author

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC (www.reevesdola.com). For more than 17 years she has dedicated her law practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and U.S. export controls. Since 2016, Johanna has served as a member of the U.S. Department of State’s Defense Trade Advisory Group (DTAG). From 2011 through 2020, Johanna served as Executive Director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable (F.A.I.R.) Trade Group and she continues to serve in an advisory role. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.

 “Let’s go Brandon!” By now, you almost certainly have heard this cheer. If you’re unfamiliar, this cheer/meme started when a crowd was heard during a live news presentation screaming out a vulgar epithet about our president. The reporter decided to portray the vulgar cheer as “let’s go Brandon!” instead of what was really said, despite what was really being said being very clearly understandable. Queue the meme factory. Social media posts, shirts, stickers, opinion pieces, arguments… all conspired to make “let’s go Brandon” famous. Yet another example of a variant on the Streisand Effect, which promotes the idea that you cannot make something go away by suppressing it. Doing so tends to have the opposite effect.

We are at an interesting time, politically. We are polarized. We are divided. Many of us are vocal. And many of us are unhappy with the current state of political affairs. Brandon does not appear to be bringing us together. More importantly, Brandon appears to be widening the divide, albeit with a different approach than its predecessors. Where are we at, as a National Firearms Act community?

From my perspective, we are in a precarious place. Many of us are getting older and have lost some of our zest for politics and doing something about those politics. Many of us have grown weary of the political shouting that never seems to get anywhere. Many of us don’t even bother to vote anymore. These are factual statements, and the accuracy of those facts imperils our ability to affect change. We must get out and vote. We must engage in civil discourse. We must try and win hearts and minds. We must find ways to work with the regulators to correct mistakes and make progress. Giving up is simply not part of the program. And it’s time to reengage.

An example of an engagement opportunity involves a news item that was circulating at the time this column was written. A great turmoil was caused when noted actor Alec Baldwin negligently shot and killed a cinematographer on a movie set. Many took the incident as an opportunity to create a divide: us versus them, liberal versus conservative, Second Amendment supporter versus gun grabber. There was and is a better way. It was a time for us to educate with civility. It was time to take the high ground by calmly explaining the four rules of gun safety instead of creating even more conflict:

• Treat every gun as if it was loaded, until you determine that it isn’t
• Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot
• Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
• Know your target and what’s behind it

We are all aware how important these safety rules are. Each one is a reinforcement of the other and provides a redundant failsafe in case one gets overlooked or ignored. The Alec Baldwin incident was an opportunity to demonstrate that the issue was not a gun issue, it was a gun safety issue. Anyone who ignores all the rules of gun safety is going to encounter calamity. Alec Baldwin did not have a major problem because he was a liberal. He had a problem because he was untrained and had a cavalier attitude to a specialized tool. It’s an opportunity for civil discourse.

The NFATCA has spent almost two decades engaging in civil discourse with our community, our regulators, and our legislators. We believe there’s more productivity in discussion than there is in shouting. We are patient in working towards results that benefit the entire NFA community. If you would like to join us and support us, we would be honored! www.nfatca.org

Estate transfers of firearms controlled under the National Firearms Act can be a maddening process, especially if the decedent’s family is unfamiliar with the federal controls over the transfer and possession of NFA firearms. In 2016, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives attempted to clarify this process by amending its regulations in Part 479 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In Final Rule 41F, ATF added a new section specifying what executors or administrators of a decedent’s estate must do to lawfully dispose of an NFA-registered firearm. In this month’s column I’ll review the regulations governing estate transfers and common pitfalls to avoid when filing an application to transfer NFA firearms from an estate.

At this point I must highlight the importance of state law in estate transfers of NFA weapons. Central issues, such as whether a person has authority to act on behalf of an estate, or who are the beneficiaries entitled to a decedent’s property, are dependent on the laws of the state where the decedent resided. The laws vary among jurisdictions, so it’s well advised to consult with legal counsel who specializes in estate law in the state governing the estate.

Further, a person authorized under state law to dispose of property on behalf of an estate may have different titles, depending on the applicable law. Such a person may be referred to as “executor,” “administrator,” “representative,” or another title. For ease, this article uses the term “executor” but remember, the actual title of the authorized representative may be different, depending on the governing state law.

I. Background

         A.      NFA Controls

The NFA, Title 26 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 53, regulates machineguns, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, silencers, destructive devices, and certain other concealable firearms known as “any other weapon.” The NFA requires such firearms to be registered by their respective manufacturer, maker, or importer within a specified time frame (e.g., non-licensees must obtain ATF approval in advance of making an NFA firearm on a Form 1 application; qualified manufacturers must register NFA firearms manufactured by submitting a Form 2 notification to ATF by the close of the next business day following the date of manufacture; and qualified importers must register NFA firearms imported by submitting a Form 2 notification to ATF within 15 days of the date of import). Only registered NFA firearms may be transferred, and ATF will not approve late registrations.

         B.      ATF Rulemaking Governing Estate Transfers

As evidenced by long-standing public guidance, ATF historically has treated estate transfers of NFA firearms registered to a decedent differently from other transfers. Because of the temporary legal nature of estates and the fact that state probate laws govern the distribution of estate property, ATF has allowed executors to temporarily possess NFA firearms to effectuate lawful transfers on behalf of the estate. ATF does not register the firearm to the executor and allows the executor to sign the transfer applications as the Transferor on behalf of the decedent’s estate. Examples of ATF’s guidance on estate transfers include “Transfers of National Firearms Act Firearms in Decedents’ Estates” (Sept. 5, 1999, revised Feb. 23, 2006) and the National Firearms Act Handbook, ATF E-Publication 5320.8 (April 2009). Both are available at atf.gov.

On September 9, 2013, ATF proposed a rulemaking (ATF 41P) to codify its public guidance on the possession and transfer of firearms registered to a decedent. Specifically, ATF proposed adding a new section to the NFA implementing regulations at 27 CFR Part 479 to clarify that an executor may lawfully possess a firearm registered to a decedent during probate without ATF treating such possession as a “transfer” under the NFA. Further, the proposed rulemaking also specified that an estate transfer of a firearm to a beneficiary, such as an heir (named in the decedent’s will) or, absent a will, anyone entitled under state law to inherit the firearm would qualify for tax exempt status.

ATF finalized this rule on January 4, 2016 with no notable changes from the 2013 proposal. Interestingly, ATF declined to accept a comment requesting the rule governing estate transfers be extended to other involuntary transfers, such as with dissolution of a corporation, liquidation in bankruptcy, or forced transfers during divorce proceedings. The stated reason for rejecting the comment was purely discretion. “The Department has exercised its discretion to decline to expand the scope of the rulemaking to encompass involuntary transfers not addressed in the proposed rule. Should the Department determine that its position with regard to estates should be extended to other involuntary transfers, it will do so in a separate rulemaking.” 81 Fed. Reg. 2665 (Jan. 15, 2016). To date there have been no further efforts to expand the scope of the rulemaking.

The new rules, codified at 27 CFR § 479.90a, took effect on July 13, 2016. Even though they codify ATF’s policies toward estate transfers and clarify an executor’s ability to possess and transfer NFA firearms on behalf of a decedent’s estate, these dispositions can still be challenging.

II. The Transfer Application

There is never a guaranty ATF will approve an application to transfer an NFA weapon. But estate transfer applications can be even more complicated because of the myriad state law issues present in these transactions. To increase the likelihood ATF will approve an estate transfer application for an NFA firearm, it’s important to know the elements of the prospective transfer, namely the who, the what, and the where. Then, when it comes time to prepare the transfer application and assemble the submission package, care must be taken to include the necessary support documents.

         A.     Confirming the Elements of the Transfer

1.      The Who – Is the Person Authorized to Act on Behalf of the Estate?

Whether ATF will approve an application to transfer an NFA firearm from an estate depends on the state law governing the estate. The burden is on the person signing the transfer application on behalf of the decedent to establish that he or she is legally authorized to dispose of the estate property.

The regulations specify the executor must identify the estate as the transferor and sign the application form on behalf of the decedent. The application packet must include documentation of the person’s appointment as executor, administrator, personal representative, or another authorized person.

In addition, the transfer application must be timely; the person signing the form must be authorized to represent an estate at the time the application is submitted. The regulations at section 479.09a(a) specify the executor must submit the transfer application “no later than the close of probate.” Estates are temporary legal entities created to dispose of a decedent’s property. The term during which an estate exists typically is defined by the laws of the state in which the decedent resided. But what if the NFA firearm is not discovered until after probate has closed? Such a scenario is not out of the realm of possibility, but then it’s incumbent on the executor to produce evidence, such as a court document, confirming the executor still has legal authority to dispose of property on behalf of the estate.

2.      The What – Is the Firearm Transferrable?

The first challenge the executor faces is determining whether the subject firearm is registered to the decedent. If an NFA firearm is not registered to the decedent, the executor cannot register or transfer that firearm. Consequently, it is important at the outset to confirm the status of each NFA firearm belonging to a decedent. Sometimes, however, the executor may not be able to locate the decedent’s registration documents. Luckily, this does not mean that all hope is lost, but certain steps must be followed to confirm whether a firearm is registered to a decedent.

The NFA is part of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, a firearm’s registration information is considered tax information which the government is generally prohibited from disclosing except to the registrant or someone with legal authority to represent the registrant. In cases of an estate, ATF is permitted to confirm registration status to the executor. However, the request must include documents showing the executor’s authority under state law to represent the decedent’s estate and dispose of the decedent’s property (see below for more information).

Be forewarned, ATF will consider any unregistered NFA firearm as contraband. If an NFA firearm is not registered to the decedent, this status cannot be cured, and ATF will require such unregistered firearms to be abandoned to ATF.

In addition to the registration status, it is also important to know whether the subject firearm is unserviceable. ATF defines an unserviceable firearm in 479.11 as “[a] firearm which is incapable of discharging a shot by means of an explosive and incapable of being readily restored to a firing condition.” This is an important question because ATF regulations allow an unserviceable firearm to be transferred as a curio or ornament without payment of the transfer tax. This may affect the appropriate transfer application form to use. More on this shortly.

3.      The Who – Who is the Transferee?

Recall that the NFA is part of the Internal Revenue Code and controls possession and transfer of the subject firearms through registration and tax requirements. Certain transfers qualify as tax exempt and are completed on the Form 5 application. If, however, the transfer is subject to the tax, the Form 4 application must be used. Using the wrong form will result in a return without action, so it is important to know whether the transfer is tax exempt or if it triggers the tax.

Beneficiaries of an estate qualify for a tax-exempt transfer and should be documented on the Form 5 application. Examples of a beneficiary include an “heir” (named in the decedent’s will), or someone entitled to inherit the property under the governing state laws. NFA firearms may be transferred interstate directly to a beneficiary of an estate. The beneficiary’s fingerprints must accompany the application form. If federal, state, or local law prohibits the beneficiary from receiving or possessing the firearm, ATF will not approve the application.

Transfers to unlicensed individuals outside the estate (i.e., not beneficiaries) are considered voluntary transfers and will require tax be paid on the Form 4 application ($5 for AOWs, $200 for all other NFA firearms). However, if the firearm is unserviceable, the Form 5 should be used and include an explanation of how the firearm was made unserviceable.

In addition, if the transfer is to be to a person outside the estate, the executor must show either that there are no beneficiaries of the estate or that the beneficiaries relinquish their rights to the firearm. This can be in the form of a signed and dated statement from each beneficiary.

D.     The Where – Does the Transferee’s Jurisdiction Allow Receipt and Possession of the Firearm?

The location of the transferee is important because if state or local law prohibits the receipt or possession of the firearm in question, ATF will not approve the transfer. This rule applies to both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries alike. For example, if the NFA firearm in question is a machinegun, it would behoove the executor to confirm whether the transferee is a resident of a locale that prohibits receipt or possession of machineguns.

In addition, when the transferee is a non-licensed individual outside the estate, ATF will not approve a Form 4 for interstate transfers, so the transferee must reside in the same state as the estate.

         B.      Checklist for Preparing the Transfer Application

• Identify the firearms subject to NFA controls. Are the firearms registered to the decedent?
• Are the subject firearms unserviceable? If so, gather documentation explaining how the firearm was rendered unserviceable.
• Is the person who will be signing the transfer form on behalf of the estate duly authorized to act in this capacity? Gather the documentation showing the person’s appointment as executor, administrator, personal representative, etc.
• Is probate still open? If not, obtain documentation showing the transfer is permissible under state law governing estates.
• Identify the transferee and determine whether the transferee is a beneficiary or is outside the estate:
  • If the transferee is a beneficiary (the transferee is identified in the decedent’s will or entitled to inherit under state laws), obtain a copy of the will or other documentation showing the beneficiary status.
  • If the transferee is outside the estate (i.e., not a beneficiary), obtain documentation showing either no beneficiaries or that the beneficiaries relinquish rights to the firearms.
• Prepare the transfer application form applicable for the type of transfer:
  • Form 5 tax exempt (to beneficiaries, or of an unserviceable firearm). Interstate transfers permitted. Transferee’s fingerprints required.
  • Form 4 tax paid (to non-licensed individuals outside the estate). Interstate transfers not permitted; transfer must go through FFL in transferee’s state. Transferee’s fingerprints and law enforcement certification required.
• Include the support documentation required under 27 CFR § 479.90a:
  • Documentation of the person’s appointment as executor, administrator, personal representative, or as an authorized person;
  • Copy of the decedent’s death certificate;
  • Copy of the will (if any);
  • Other evidence of the person’s authority to dispose of property in the estate (especially important if probate is closed); and
  • Documentation relating to or affecting the disposition of firearms from the estate (e.g., a beneficiary’s relinquishment of rights).

***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.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Johanna Reeves is the founding partner of the law firm Reeves & Dola, LLP in Washington, DC. For more than 17 years she has dedicated her law practice to advising and representing U.S. companies on compliance matters arising under the federal firearms laws and U.S. export controls. Since 2016, Johanna has served as a member of the U.S. Department of State’s Defense Trade Advisory Group. From 2011 through 2020, Johanna served as executive director for the Firearms and Ammunition Import/Export Roundtable Trade Group and she continues to serve in an advisory role. Johanna can be reached at jreeves@reevesdola.com or 202-715-9941.