The Auto-Ordnance Corporation spent nearly twenty years trying to market the first production run of 15,000 Thompson submachine guns. Unfortunately, no one customer wanted enough of this new type of weapon at any one time to deplete the inventory. In 1939, two very important events transpired: the rumblings of another world war began in Europe and a new management team took over an almost failed Auto-Ordnance Corporation. The new president, J. Russell Maguire, had a fresh vision for Auto-Ordnance and the foresight to place the Thompson back in production – even before the old inventory of Thompson guns manufactured years ago by Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company were sold. A deal was struck in December 1939 wherein the Savage Arms Company, Utica, New York, became the second subcontractor to manufacture the Thompson. The first Savage manufactured Thompsons rolled off the assembly line four months later for delivery to many new Auto-Ordnance customers.

When long time Thompson enthusiast Mike Wank first examined Savage Thompson submachine gun S-15043, he knew immediately the serial number was almost too good to be true. Serial number S-15043 was recorded on the ATF registration Form 4 and the numbers on the upper receiver and lower frame matched. Mike recognized something was probably amiss with this serial number; however, he purchased S-15043 because he found exactly what he wanted – a Tommy Gun at a good price.

No documentation has been uncovered that tells exactly what serial number Savage Arms used when Thompson production began. It is believed by many Thompson experts the serial numbering started exactly where the Colt manufactured Thompson’s stopped: No. 15041. To support this belief are documented Savage Model of 1928 Thompsons in the 15,000, 16,000 and 17,000 serial number ranges. The earliest production Savage Thompson known to exist is S-15651. Actually, it is the only Savage Thompson found by this author to exist in the 15,000 serial number range. As were many of the early Savage Thompsons, S-15651 was apparently sold to the British Purchasing Commission as evidenced by the British Broad Arrow markings on the left side of the receiver by the magazine well. The extreme need for guns by the British in early World War II may well explain why there are so few surviving examples of early Savage Thompsons. It is very likely many of these early guns were probably used until they could be used no more and discarded or simply just lost in battle.

If Savage started production at serial number S-15041, then S-15043 would be the third Savage Thompson manufactured. Could Mike have purchased the third Savage Thompson? And as a shooter!

Early production Savage Thompsons have a few characteristics that are quite different from the later production Savage Thompsons. The most common known difference is the New York, N.Y. U.S.A. address on the right side of the receiver. The great majority of Savage Thompsons have a Bridgeport, Connecticut U.S.A. address. Many Thompson enthusiasts have never seen a Savage Thompson with a New York address. The exact point where the address markings changed is unknown. Frank Iannamico’s excellent Thompson reference book, American Thunder II, places the address change somewhere between the 75,000 and 84,000 serial number ranges.

The second characteristic of early Savage production Thompsons is not so well known; it involves the patent markings on the right side of the receiver. Early Savage Thompsons have patent date markings that are identical to the markings on the late serial numbered Colt Thompsons. These are the patent date markings with the 1922 dates (identical to Colt Thompsons from serial No. 14500 to the end of the Colt production at No. 15040). The patent markings commonly found on the great majority of all Thompsons, including Savage Thompsons with a New York address, are patent numbers. As with the different addresses, above, it is also unknown at what point the patent date markings changed to the patent number markings. Research by the author has documented Savage Thompsons in the 25,000 and lower serial number ranges with the patent date markings; and documented Savage Thompsons in the 26,000 and higher serial number ranges with the patent number markings. Somewhere in between this range of serial numbers appears to be the change-over point – approximately 10,000 guns into production. However, this research was somewhat limited in scope because there are not a lot of very early Savage Thompsons to examine. As with all war time manufactured firearms, exceptions undoubtedly exist and will surface as research continues.

It is important to re-emphasize Savage receivers were still being marked with a New York address when the patent date markings changed to patent number markings. There are three known variations of address and patent markings on the Savage Thompson receiver:

• The very early first type Savage receiver marked with a New York address and patent date markings (seldom encountered).
• The second type Savage receiver marked with a New York address and patent number markings is the most commonly found Savage receiver with a New York address. The patent numbers were positioned in the same location as the patent dates.
• The third type (and most commonly encored) Savage receiver is marked with a Bridgeport address and patent number markings.

A quick inspection of Mike’s Thompson revealed a Bridgeport, Connecticut address and patent number markings and is definitely a late production Savage receiver. Careful examination of the serial number area revealed some handy work by an enterprising person or company.

The matching serial number on the lower frame of S-15043 looks to be original. There is a very slight misalignment of the numbers, but this is common on Savage lower frames. Most important, all the numbers on the lower frame are machine stamped and appear unchanged and unaltered.

Mike filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on S-15043 to learn more about the history of this Savage Thompson with the unusual serial number. From the redacted documents provided by ATF, it can be determined S-15043 began life on the National Firearms Act (NFA) Registry via an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 2 (Return of Firearms Manufactured, Imported, or Received by Manufacturer, Importer, Dealer (Other Than Pawnbroker), and Pawnbroker, under Chapter 25, Subchapter B, Internal Revenue Code), dated December 1, 1951. This registration date explained the reason for the handy work on the receiver and also told the exact origin of this Thompson. December 1, 1951, is believed to be the date George Numrich of The Numrich Arms Company (NAC) registered approximately 95 class three weapons that were included in the Thompson assets purchased from Frederic A. Willis and three of his associates on October 23, 1951. The class three weapons involved in this sale included Thompson submachine guns, prototype Thompson guns, Birmingham Small Arms (BSA) submachine guns, a .30-06 machine gun and a sufficient quantity of parts to assemble complete Thompsons. The small number of Thompsons registered by Numrich Arms Company in 1951 has come to be known by many in the Thompson community as the “NAC” or the “crate” Thompsons – because the complete Thompson business was packed away in crates when purchased by George Numrich. Continuing research has revealed several other NAC Thompsons also began life on the NFA Registry on December 1, 1951, with a documented transfer from former Thompson owner Frederic A. Willis to Numrich Arms Company.

Fortunately, the buttstock of S-15043 retained a property tag of one of the previous owners, The Village of Liberty. Internet research revealed such a city in the State of New York, very close to Mamaroneck, New York, the location of the Numrich Arms Company in 1951. Review of the FOIA redacted IRS/ATF forms indicated S-15043 had not been owned by a governmental agency for many years. A call to the police department located a retired officer who was for many years in charge of the Village of Liberty Police Department Firearm Training Division: Lt. Doug Lindsley.

Doug Lindsley began his career at the Village of Liberty Police Department in early 1971; he retired with the rank of Lieutenant in June 1995. Three times a year he attended the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) firearms training at Camp Smith, New York, and also assisted as a firearms instructor for the FBI special agents. In 1979, he was invited to attend the FBI’s annual qualification, barbecue, and competition shoot at Camp Smith. The shoot lasted three days and when the smoke cleared, Doug had finished first, ahead of the 186 FBI agents and 44 different state agency officers. Unfortunately, he could not accept the first place award because the competition was only for the agents… but he did manage a big smile for a long time afterward. The Thompson was used in many different phases of training at Camp Smith, but this only lasted for a couple of years. Doug recalled the Bureau began phasing out submachine gun training and started emphasizing the use of shotguns for the many small towns and rural areas in the State of New York. There are no known photographs of S-15043 while it was at the police department or any record of it ever being fired in the line of duty.

S-15043 was at the department when Doug became a police officer. A 50-round drum and two 20-round magazines accompanied the gun. Some excellent detective work by Doug produced a copy of the original IRS Form 5 (Firearms) tax exempt transfer document. This form shows August 15, 1952, as the date of transfer for S-15043 between the Village of Liberty Police Department and Numrich Arms Company. It is signed by “George R. Numrich, Jr., Individual Owner, 505 Halstead Avenue, Mamaroneck, New York.”

Doug believed S-15043 was sold back to Numrich Arms in the early 1980s and the money used to purchase shotguns. He was half-right; obtaining shotguns for the Liberty Police Department was the reason S-15043 was sold. But the purchasing dealer was Selective Fire Limited, a well known Class Three dealer now located in Marietta, Georgia.

The police patch shown in this story was the official department patch when S-15043 was in service with the Village of Liberty Police Department. Doug believed this patch should always be with S-15043 and proudly provided it to Mike.

Is Mike’s Thompson the third production Thompson submachine gun manufactured by Savage Arms Company in 1940? Yes and no. The receiver was definitely not produced in the early months of 1940. It is a late production Savage receiver that was probably surplus or rejected for some unknown reason and then never needed because production changed in 1942 from the Model of 1928 Thompson to the Model M1 Thompson. However, the lower frame appears to be original and at one time part of the original Savage S-15043 Thompson. Interviews of several former owners indicated S-15043 may have been parkerized after it was sold by the Village of Liberty Police Department. It is not hard to imagine how the original third Thompson manufactured by Savage could have been used in early quality control type testing that ultimately may have led to the receiver being destroyed or discarded. There is no doubt the lower frame of S-15043 was retained by Savage Arms (and later by Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport) and ultimately made its way to the Numrich Arms Company when George Numrich purchased the Thompson in 1951.

Review of other known “NAC” Thompsons with Savage receivers show the same serial numbering handy work as S-15043. The reversed numeral three in the serial number is just another example of the rudimentary Numrich Arms Company early markings. Careful examination of the receiver revealed what may have been a “NAC” or “NU” (for Numrich?) marking below the Numrich Arms Company stamped serial number; this marking was probably removed when this Thompson was refinished. Numrich Arms Company had to mark the serial numbers on the Thompson receivers in 1951 before registration with the Internal Revenue Service or the government would assign a serial number. The lower frame of S-15043 was obviously found in among the many Thompson parts and mated with a Savage receiver. A decision to mark this Thompson with the serial number of the lower frame was made and a new “NAC Thompson” was born. What happened to the “first” Savage S-15043 will probably never be known; however, the lower frame of this third Savage Thompson continues to live on as part of this “NAC” or “crate” Thompson.

• Czech, VZ82/CZ82 pistols (in original configuration), all calibers, all serial numbers.
• Gerat 06H, 7.92 X 33 caliber semiautomatic rifles made by Firepower International, Ltd., of England bearing the following serial numbers: 08, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16.

Section III – Firearms removed from the provisions of the National Firearms Act and classified as curios or relics, still subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, the Gun Control Act of 1968:

• Beretta, Model 92SB pistols, caliber 9mm, S/N C31509Z through C31538Z; with factory-issued detachable folding shoulder stocks.
• Coston Supply Co., Coston Line Throwing Gun, caliber .45-70, S/N 447; determination applies only when included as an integral part of its accompanying accessory kit.

Section IV – NFA firearms classified as curios or relics, still subject to the provisions of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, the National Firearms Act, and 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, the Gun Control Act of 1968:

• SS-1 Sidewinder machinegun, serial numbers Ex-001 through Ex-0015 and Ex-0017 through Ex-020.

ATF Announces Final ITAR Rule

ATF has announced a final rule that conforms the regulations in 27 CFR Part 447 to the revised International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The final rule amends the list of countries from which the importation of defense articles into the United States are prohibited by adding Afghanistan and removing South Africa and some of the states comprising the former Soviet Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan). The rule also removes the arms embargo against the countries of Serbia and Montenegro. It also clarifies an outdated reference in the regulations to Zaire, currently known as the “Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

Importer Legal Issues

An overview and update on legal issues that licensed importers should be aware of was presented by David Wulf, an ATF acting associate chief counsel, during the annual ATF Importers Conference held last summer in Washington, D.C.

While 18 USC 922 (I) makes it generally unlawful to import firearms and ammunition there are certain exceptions.

Government exceptions are found in 18 USC 925(a)(1) which allows federal, state and local governments to import firearms and ammunition that otherwise would be prohibited from importation, such as nonsporting firearms/ammunition and surplus military firearms. This exception does not apply to government contractors.

The “Sporting Purposes” test is found in 18 USC 925(d)(3) which provides that firearms and ammunition are importable if they are of a type that is “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” This does not apply to NFA or surplus military firearms.

If you bring a firearm out of the U.S., such as on a European hunting trip, no Form 6 is needed for its return. However, upon return, you must satisfy U.S. Customs that you took the firearm out of the U.S. Using Custom form 4457, as well as a sales slip, are good ways to do this.

Conditional importations are permitted under 18 USC 925(d) which allows the importation of a firearm for examination and testing to determine whether the firearm would be importable.

Curios and Relics are covered in 18 USC 925(e) and 27 CFR 478.11 defines Curios and Relics. Regardless of other Gun Control Act prohibitions, importers can import C&R long guns and C&R sporting handguns. To be a Curio & Relic, the firearm must be in its original configuration. Parts can be replaced as long as the configuration isn’t changed.

The Scientific or Research Purposes exception allows non-sporting firearms and ammunition to be imported for research and development purposes. An example would be importing ammunition to test a weapons system. Several years ago ATF expanded what was considered scientific or research purposes to include things beyond “laboratory research” such as research and development. In 2006, ATF advised that product liability testing is included in this exception.

It should be noted that ammunition imported for scientific or research purposes will only be approved in reasonable amounts. 28 USC 5844 allows the importation of NFA firearms for limited purposes including scientific or research purposes. However, 18 USC 922(o) has no exception for scientific or research purposes. Thus, post ’86 machine guns can not be imported for this purpose.

Smokeless powder designed for use in small arms ammunition by itself is classified as “ammunition.” Thus, importers of smokeless powder must be licensed as importers under the Gun Control Act, must also be licensed as an importer under the explosives laws, be AECA registered, and apply for an approved Form 6 to import.

Numerous airgun silencers tested by ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch have been determined to be, by nature of their design and function, firearm silencers.

A firearms silencer is defined in 18 USC 921(a)(24) as a device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or muffler, and any parts intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Starter guns which will or are designed to or can be readily converted to expel projectiles are considered firearms. Starter guns built on the frame or receiver of a firearm are firearms.

37/38mm gas guns are destructive devices when possessed with bean bag ammunition. The bag cartridge, standing alone, constitutes ammunition for a destructive device. ATF Ruling 95-3 provides that 37/38mm gas/flare guns possessed with “anti-personnel” ammunition, consisting of cartridges containing wood pellets, rubber pellets or balls, or bean bags, are destructive devices as that term is used in 18 USC 921(a)(4) and 26 USC 5845(f)(2). Finally, Wulf noted that nail guns are not firearms. ATF Ruling 54-245 held that a tool powered by blank .22 and .38 cartridges that is used for setting studs or driving anchors into masonry or metal is not a firearm. Even when a nail gun expels a projectile by the action of an explosive it is not regulated as a “firearm.”

ATF Installs New Phone System

One of ATF’s busiest customer call centers, the Federal Firearms Licensing Center (FFLC) in Atlanta, Georgia, has implemented an Automated Call Distribution system (ACD) to improve customer service.

The FFLC mail call center phone line, (866) 662-2750 (toll-free), is the first number dialed by many licensees. A primary ACD enhancement gives callers the option of waiting in a queue to speak with a live customer service representative instead of being transferred into a voice mailbox, which is sometimes full and unable to accept new messages. The ACD system also efficiently redirects the more common types of calls not requiring a live response. For example, requests for application packets are some of the most frequent and repetitive calls received by the FFLC. The ACD system automatically refers these calls at the beginning of the call-flow process to the ATF Distribution Center in Virginia (703) 455-7801 for a response, freeing customer service representatives to devote their time to answering more complex licensing questions.

Another important ACD enhancement is the systematic measurement of call volumes by date, time, length, and type. The system generates statistical reports that inform management how to allocate customer service representatives resources to best meet workload demands. Thanks to ACD, the FFLC now knows that the customer service representatives facilitate more than 3,400 calls per month. ACD also counts the number and length of abandoned calls and tracks customer wait times in the queue to establish performance benchmarks by which to plan and measure continued improvement. The ACD system has been such a success that ATF plans to expand its use to other customer call centers in Enforcement Programs and Services, such as the Federal Explosives Licensing Center and the National Firearms Act and Imports Branches.

ATF Switching to Electronic Fund Processing

Licensees making payments to ATF should note that ATF is switching to electronic fund processing. Checks presented to ATF will be converted into an electronic funds transfer, meaning that ATF will copy the check and use the account information to electronically debit your account for the amount of the check. The debit will be shown on the payer’s regular account statement. The original check will not be sent back as it will be destroyed by ATF, but the agency will keep a digital image of it.

The author publishes two of the small arms industry’s most widely read trade newsletters. The International Firearms Trade covers the world firearms scene, and The New Firearms Business covers the domestic market. Visit www.FirearmsGroup.com. He may be reached at: FirearmsB@aol.com.

The OIG found, for example, that NFA Branch staff do not process applications or enter data into the NFRTR in a consistent manner, which leads to errors in records and inconsistent decisions on NFA weapons applications. In addition, the NFA Branch has a backlog of record discrepancies between the NFRTR and inventories of federal firearms licensees that were identified during ATF compliance inspections. Further, the NFRTR’s software programming is flawed (by ATF’s own admission) and causes technical problems for those working in the database.

“The lack of consistency in procedures and the backlog in reconciling discrepancies, combined with the technical issues, result in errors in the records, reports and queries produced from the NFRTR,” the OIG wrote. “These errors affect the NFRTR’s reliability as a regulatory tool when it is used during compliance inspections of federal firearms licensees.” However, the OIG said it did not find evidence that individual weapons owners or federal firearms licensees had been sanctioned or criminally prosecuted because of errors in the database.

The NFA Branch Chief (Ken Houchens) told the OIG that he has recently initiated several actions to reduce errors in the NFRTR, such as hiring additional staff, improving communications and training of staff members, and revising a procedures manual. Additionally, both the NFA Branch Chief and the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services both stated that lack of funding precluded other significant actions such as correcting and upgrading the programming for the NFRTR and implementing online submissions of applications.

Timeliness Improvements

The OIG found that the NFA Branch has decreased the amount of time it takes to process NFA weapons applications and improved responsiveness to customer inquiries. Between 2004 and 2006, the average processing time for all eight types of NFA weapons applications decreased collectively from 30 days to 8 days. (The eight types of NFA weapons applications are: Form 5320.20, Application to Transport Interstate or to Temporarily Export Certain NFA Firearms; Form 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm; Form 2, Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported; Form 3, Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer of Firearm and Registration to Special Occupational Taxpayer; Form 4, Application for Tax-Paid Transfer and Registration of a Firearm; Form 5, Application for Tax-Exempt Transfer and Registration of a Firearm; Form 9, Application and Permit for Permanent Exportation of a Firearm; and Form 10, Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government entities.)

In the same time period, the average processing time for the four types of applications used by individual weapons owners (Forms 1 and 4) and NFA weapons dealers (Forms 3 and 5) for registering and transferring NFA weapons decreased collectively from 39 days to 10 days. Specifically, processing time for Form 1 decreased from 99 days to 28 days; for Form 4, from 81 days to 9 days; for Form 3, from 30 days to 4 days; and for Form 5, 30 days to 9 days. The NFA Branch Chief attributed the improved processing times to the hiring of more contractor Data Entry Clerks, who enter data from the paper forms into the NFRTR, thereby freeing other staff to focus on reviewing the content of the applications.

To further improve customer service, the NFA Branch established a working relationship with the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (NFATCA), which represents NFA weapons dealers, manufacturers, importers, and owners. To build that relationship, the NFA Branch hosted a meeting with members of the NFATCA executive board in 2006 to demonstrate Branch operations and discuss NFA and NFRTR issues. The NFA Branch and the NFATCA also collaborated to write a handbook on the NFA and the weapons registration process, which ATF has made available on its website. However, the OIG found that the ATF website’s generally poor structure makes it difficult to navigate or locate relevant information and is a potential barrier to the electronic handbook’s use. The NFATCA has since announced it will offer printed copies of the handbook for sale at cost. Contact them at their website address: www.NFATCA.org for details.

Background

On June 26, 1934, the U.S. Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA) to limit the availability of machine guns, short barreled shotguns and rifles, firearm sound suppressors and other similar arms often used by criminals during the Prohibition Era. The NFA imposed a tax on the manufacture, import, and distribution of NFA arms not under the control of the U.S. government. The Bureau of ATF collects the taxes and maintains NFA arm possession records in a central registry – an electronic database called the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR), which contains records on almost 2 million arms. ATF’s NFA Branch (under the Firearms and Explosives Services Division, Office of Enforcement Programs and Services) maintains the NFRTR and processes all applications to make, manufacture, import, register, and transfer NFA arms.

Congress expanded the scope of the NFA through the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 to include destructive devices (bombs, incendiary devices such as flash bang grenades, and arms with a bore of greater than one-half inch), frames and receivers that can convert a semiautomatic arm into an automatic arm, and other concealable arms. The GCA restricts registrations of NFA arms only to makers (unlicensed individuals who usually make one arm at a time for individual use), manufacturers and importers. Further, the GCA called for a 30-day amnesty period ending December 1, 1968, where anyone possessing an NFA arm could register it without consequence. Any NFA arm not registered during the amnesty is considered contraband and cannot be registered.

On May 19, 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act to prohibit possession of machine guns that were not legally possessed prior to its enactment. Thus, newly made machine guns were to be available only to the U.S. government and law enforcement entities.

NFA arms and their possessors must be registered with the NFRTR, and whenever possession is transferred (through sale, rental, gift, or bequest) the registration must be updated. A possessor is required to retain the approved NFA weapons application form as proof of a weapon’s registration and make it available to ATF upon request (26 U.S.C. § 5841 [e]). Manufacturers, importers, and makers of NFA weapons also are required to register each newly made, manufactured or imported arm.

The (OIG) examined ATF’s effectiveness in maintaining the records of registrations and transfers of NFA arms in the NFRTR. The OIG conducted the review in response to requests from members of Congress who had received letters from citizens expressing concern about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR. These citizens asserted that errors in the NFRTR and errors in decisions by NFA Branch employees left NFA weapons possessors vulnerable to unjust convictions for violating the NFA.

Inconsistent Data Entry

Due to inadequate standard operating procedures, training and communications, NFA Branch staff members do not process applications or enter data uniformly into the NFRTR. The staff’s variations in completing these tasks results in errors in NFRTR records, reports and queries as well as inconsistent decisions on NFA weapons registration and transfer applications, the OIG found.

The NFA Branch does not provide staff with a comprehensive standard operating procedures manual. The NFA Branch Chief inherited an undated manual of standard operating procedures when he assumed his position in 2005. The manual was under revision at the time of the OIG’s review, but the NFA Branch Chief said he has not had enough staff to complete the revision.

Specifically, none of the staff members the OIG investigators interviewed had ever received a copy of this manual as a resource to help them perform their duties. Instead, the procedural memorandums and directives provided to NFA Branch staff as guidance were usually specific to one issue and did not cover the basic information needed to process applications and enter data into the NFRTR.

NFA Branch staff also stated that they did not have adequate written direction on how to enter data such as abbreviations in the NFRTR, how to maintain application files, how often to contact applicants with pending applications, the proper method for fixing or working around NFRTR technical flaws, and who has the responsibility for correcting errors in NFRTR records. Therefore, staff members relied on each other or on managers to verbally explain what they believed the procedures were for processing applications and navigating the NFRTR database.

Additionally, the OIG said training for new NFA Branch staff members is ad hoc and not uniform. Staff members said that due to inadequate training, it was difficult to become familiar with the NFRTR and navigate easily through the database, a vital skill needed to process applications and conduct record checks. Staff also said inadequate training hampered their ability to learn about the NFA and the process for registering and transferring NFA weapons. Supervisors’ inadequate training led to variations in their direction and inconsistent decisions about approving or disapproving NFA weapons registration and transfer applications.

The OIG also found that the NFA Branch did not hold regular staff meetings so that the staff would stay current on changes in NFA weapons regulations. However, in March 2007, after the fieldwork for the OIG review was completed, the NFA Branch Section Chiefs began conducting monthly staff meetings to improve the flow of information within the Branch.

Backlog of NFRTR Errors

The NFA Branch is not promptly correcting discrepancies between the NFRTR records and licensee inventories, the OIG says. The NFA Branch is responsible for addressing the errors and discrepancies, identified by Industry Operators Investigators (IOIs) during compliance inspections of licensees. However, there are no established guidelines for the Branch on reconciling the errors within a certain amount of time, and as of March 2007 the Branch had a backlog of 61 discrepancy reports to reconcile. This means that some corrections to records do not get made before a licensee receives their next inspection, which could be 3 years later. At the time of the OIG’s review, one staff member was working part-time on the backlog. About one of four discrepancies could not be resolved without research by NFA Branch staff.

In a survey taken of IOIs by the OIG, 46.5% (139 of 299) reported that they found a discrepancy between the NFRTR inventory report and a licensee’s inventory “always” or “most of the time.” Further, 44.4% (133 of 299) said that the discrepancy was due to an error in the NFRTR “always” or “most of the time.” In comparison, none said that the error was “always” on the part of the licensee, and only 2% (6 of 299) said that the error was on the part of the licensee “most of the time.”

While licensees worry that discrepancies could result in their investigation by ATF Special Agents for violations of the NFA and GCA, IOIs told the OIG they only refer cases involving discrepancies to Special Agents when the discrepancy cannot be resolved or when there is a suspicion ofa deliberate violation of law. Between the years 2000 and 2006, only 15 federal firearms licensees were charged criminally for violating the NFA. In 2006, ATF conducted 7,292 compliance inspections and issued 12,176 violations. Of that total, less than 1% (53) was for NFA violations. In 2006, ATF issued an average of 1.7 violations per inspection, but only 0.007 NFA violations per inspection.

The OIG review could not identify any instances in which an NFRTR error resulted in inappropriate seizure of an NFA weapon or in appropriate criminal consequences to an individual weapons owner or FFL-holder. The OIG further asked the NFATCA for examples of its members’ weapons being inappropriately seized due to inaccuracies in the NFRTR, and none were received in response.

While the OIG could not find instances of wrongful seizure or prosecution of individuals or licensees based on ATF errors, it did note two examples (one provided the NFATCA and the other by ATF):

• 1. The NFA Branch incorrectly approved the sale (transfer) of a machine gun from a law enforcement agency to a federal firearms licensee. The licensee subsequently tried to sell (transfer) the weapon to another licensee. However, the NFA Branch discovered its original error and subsequently disapproved both the first and second transactions. The licensee was not allowed to retain possession of the machine gun, and the law enforcement agency did not have the funds to return the $10,000 paid by the licensee for the arm.
• 2. An NFA Branch Examiner processed an application to transfer an NFA weapon from a licensee to another licensee. The seller had purchased the arm from a police department that had, in turn, purchased the weapon ten years before from an importer. The Examiner who handled the original transaction should have stamped the approved application form “restricted” as only holders of certain licenses could possess and transfer the arm. Because the first application form was never stamped, the licensee did not know that he could only resell the weapon to certain license holders. The NFA Branch had to disapprove the licensee’s application to sell the weapon.

ATF Enforcement Actions

In 2006, ATF seized 3,030 NFA weapons, including 1,280 machine guns, 550 sawed-off shotguns and rifles, 571 silencers, 415 destructive devices, and 214 devices categorized as any other weapons. These totals included unregistered NFA weapons seized during criminal investigations as well as registered and unregistered NFA weapons seized as a result of compliance inspections of licensees.

In the OIG-conducted survey, IOIs were asked how many times in the past year they had referred a licensee to an ATF Special Agent based on a discrepancy between the NFRTR inventory report and the licensee’s inventory. Of the 298 IOIs who responded, 91% said they had made no referrals, 7% had made one referral, 1.6% had made 2 and less than 1% had made 3. IOIs interviewed emphasized they only refer cases when an NFA weapons registration in the NFRTR cannot be established after discussion with the licensee, the NFA Branch, and extensive searches of the NFRTR, or when they suspect deliberate criminal activity involving NFA weapons.

In fact, the OIG found that few licensees were criminally charged with NFA violations. Between 2000 and 2006, only 15 licensees were charged with violating 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, the chapter of the Internal Revenue Code that includes the NFA. This represents only 6.5% of the total number of licensees (230) criminally charged with any violation.

NFRTR Database

As of November 2006, the NFRTR contained registrations for 1,906,786 weapons. The total number of weapons included 1,186,138 destructive devices (including 918,517 flash bang grenades), 391,532 machine guns, 150,364 silencers, 95,699 short barreled shotguns, 33,518 short barreled rifles, 48,443 weapons categorized as any other weapons, and 1,082 “unknown” devices or weapons not classified in the other categories (this includes older weapons or devices registered with ATF before the NFRTR was automated that are not clearly identified or do not fit in any other category of weapon).

On a percentage basis, the weapons in the NFRTR as of November 2006 break down into: 62.2% destructive devices, 20.5% machine guns, 7.9% silencers, 5% short barreled shotguns, 1.8% short barreled shotguns, 2.5% any other weapon and 0.1% unknown.

Each record in the NFRTR contains the make, model, and serial number of the weapon, the date of its registration, and the name and address of the person entitled to possess the weapon. For weapons registered prior to 1983, the NFRTR contains record entries of the three most recent transactions. After 1983, the records contain all transactions. Another database linked to the NFRTR database contains electronic images of the related applications forms for both pre- and post- 1983 registered weapons.

The reason for this is that when the NFRTR was automated in 1983, the NFA Branch chose to focus on entering all transaction information for newly registered weapons, so NFA Branch staff entered only the three most recent records for each NFA weapon registered prior to 1983. A full transaction history of the pre-1983 weapon is available in the imaging database, which contains scanned copies of original application forms. All transactions of an NFA weapon registered after 1983 are entered into the NFRTR.

ATF Database Flawed

The NFRTR’s programming has not been modified since 1997 when ATF converted the original 1983 electronic database to an Oracle platform. Several NFA Branch personnel described the NFRTR programming as obsolete and identified flaws: (1) older NFRTR records with empty data fields can improperly exclude the records from search results, (2) the NFRTR can erroneously generate two separate records for one weapon, (3) the system lacks controls to prevent inconsistent data entry, (4) the system lists incorrect owners of NFA weapons on queries and reports, and (5) when multiple weapons are registered on a single form, a change entered in the NFRTR for one weapon incorrectly applies thechange to all the weapons listed on that form.

One IOI, in making a comment about the need to update the NFRTR computer system, said, (ATF should) “…stop operating like a third world Department of Motor Vehicles office.” For the last five years, ATF would not make system enhancements to the NFRTR as ATF planned to integrate many of the databases of its National Tracing Center, Firearms and Explosives Imports Branch, and NFA Branch through the Firearms Integrated Technology (FIT) project. ATF received budget allocations for FIT in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. However it reallocated the funds to another mission which exhausted the funding by 2004. ATF’s subsequent funding requests for FIT have not been successful. During 2006, the NFA Branch processed and entered 402,151 NFA weapons applications forms into the NFRTR.

As of March 2007, the NFA Branch had a staff of 20 ATF personnel and 12 contractors. The NFA Branch is authorized to have a complement of sixteen Examiners, eight Specialists, one Special Occupational Tax (SOT) Specialist, and one Information Technology Specialist. As of March 2007, it had only ten Examiners, four Specialists, one SOT Specialist, and one Information Technology Specialist.

Not All NFA Staff on “Same Page”

One Examiner interviewed by the OIG stated that, due to poor training, not all staff members are “on the same page” on how they approach their work and applications may be processed incorrectly. He cited an instance in which an Examiner needed to know whether a state allowed a certain type of NFA weapon, and rather than researching the current state law or regulation, the Examiner simply queried the NFRTR to view a similar transaction in that state that had been approved in the past. State laws and regulations may change since a previous transaction the OIG pointed out in its report, but that Examiners are not kept current on these changes and are not trained to research the laws and regulations appropriately, instead of following old transactions.

Members of industry have long complained that the same question on the regulations posed to NFA staff will bring different responses, depending on who is asked. The OIG research bore this out as it noted that “inadequate training could affect the direction given to NFA Branch staff as well as information provided to the ATF field offices.”

For example, the lack of training on NFA-related state laws and regulations affected the guidance from Section Chiefs to Examiners. Further, an IOI survey respondent commented, “We can call (the) NFA (Branch) and speak to different people (on the same issue) and get different answers. This has happened more than a few times in the past.”

The Section Chiefs are usually selected from the Examiner pool and do not receive additional training, either supervisory or NFA-related. “They receive the same ad hoc training as other NFA Branch staff, and the quality of the information received during the training is not standard,” the OIG noted.

“Because new staff members receive different training from different people who also were not formally trained, the quality of the training in terms of topics covered and accuracy of information is insufficient,” the OIG reasoned. “Incomplete and inaccurate training leads to errors in the NFRTR and in decisions based on the NFRTR. Moreover, variations in direction based on inadequate training could produce inconsistent approvals or disapprovals of NFA weapons applications.”

One of the NFATCA representatives who maintains a federal license for NFA weapons estimated for the OIG that during his compliance inspections the NFRTR inventory reports were 25 to 30% inaccurate. He added that NFA licensees fear compliance inspections because the NFRTR is inaccurate, not because their inventory records are inaccurate. Another NFATCA representative said that NFA licensees “should not be afraid of compliance inspections because their records are probably better than ATF’s.”

Multiple Registrations Linked

NFA Branch staff noted that the NFRTR does not always indicate the correct owner of weapons on queries and reports. The NFA Branch Program Manager stated to the OIG that this problem was identified almost immediately after the new NFRTR system was deployed in 1997, but the information technology staff was unable to correct the problem and ATF did not pursue resolution.

When multiple NFA weapons are registered or transferred on the same form they are initially linked by their NFRTR-generated control number. This control number is based on the form and not the weapon and applies to the records of all weapons registered on that form. The link between weapons registered on the same NFA weapon application is broken only after weapons have been transferred to new owners two subsequent times. The weapons would then have their own NFRTR-generated control numbers. This programming flaw is most evident when a transfer of a weapon is canceled by the applicant and that weapon’s preceding transaction involved multiple weapons registered or transferred on the same form. If no action is taken to correct the record to show the true current owner, all NFRTR queries and reports will incorrectly list the transferee from the canceled transaction as the current owner. However, when an NFA Branch staff member manually fixes the record that show the correct owner of the weapon, the NFRTR will apply that change to all the weapons on the form, which are still linked by the same control number. Since it takes a significant amount of time and effort to ensure that only the relevant weapon on that record is changed, Examiners often do not fixvsuch records, the OIG said.

Non-Completion of Vital Projects

ATF has initiated, but not completed due to budget constraints, two projects that the OIG said would improve the accuracy of the NFRTR and increase the efficiency of the NFA Branch. The first involves scanning all NFA weapons transfer and registration applications since 1934 into digital files in a database and establishing an indexing system to search this new database. The second project, titled e-Forms, is creating an electronic filing system for individual weapons owners and federal firearms licensees to submit NFA weapons applications online.

The OIG found that ATF has a oneyear backlog worth of NFA weapons applications to image and index. In 2005, the NFA Branch had four contractors working on imaging and indexing, and the backlog was only 6months. In June 2006, budget cuts forced ATF to reduce the number of contractors to two, which has increased the backlog significantly.

ATF has not completed the e-Forms project it initiated in 2004. The capability for individuals and industry to submit applications online would reduce data entry errors by NFA Branch personnel, detect errors on applicant’s registration and transfer forms before entry into the NFRTR, and allow importers and manufacturers to check the status of forms they submit electronically for processing.

In fiscal year 2002, ATF received funding for the e-Forms project and developed the requirements document for an electronic filing system and a prototype of the system. By 2006, a prototype of the system was demonstrated to the industry. However, due to budget constraints, ATF suspended the project before the system was finalized and implemented. ATF estimated that it needed just under $14 million to complete the e-Forms system and to operate it for the first two years and that $200,000 would be needed to operate it each year thereafter.

Recommendations

To help improve the processing of NFA applications and reduce errors in the NFRTR, the OIG recommended that ATF:

• Improve the ATF website by making it easier to find NFA information, such as frequently asked questions, applications forms and instructions, NFA Branch contact information, and the NFA Handbook.
• Develop and disseminate to all NFA Branch staff a comprehensive standard operating procedures manual that includes all NFA weapons application processes, NFRTR processes and data entry codes and abbreviations.
• Develop uniform and structured training for staff members that includes standard operating procedures and hands-on experience with the NFRTR. Ensure that all NFA Branch staff members attend the training and that the staff trainers are themselves properly trained. Provide training for the Section Chiefs on supervisory techniques.
• Establish regular and recurring methods of communication to NFA Branch staff.
• Resolve discrepancies between the NFRTR and inventories of federal firearms licensees in a timely manner.
• Develop and implement an action plan to fix technical programming flaws and errors in the NFRTR.
• Develop and implement an action plan for eliminating the backlog of imaging and indexing forms for the imaging database.
• Develop and implement an action plan for completing the e-Forms project.

The OIG concluded that since 2004, the NFA Branch has reduced the overall average processing time by more than two-thirds for the most used forms and has improved its responsiveness to customer service inquiries and requests for information; however it has much more work to do to improve its operations.

The author publishes two of the small arms industry’s most widely read trade newsletters. The International Firearms Trade covers the world firearms scene, and The New Firearms Business covers the domestic market. He also offers FFL-mailing lists to firms interested in direct marketing efforts to the industry. He may be reached at: FirearmsB@aol.com.

Another Amnesty? We in the Class 3 community kick this subject around on occasion, and wish for one to be declared- simply to guarantee that the records are straight. Most of us have a not unfounded fear that “Something will happen”, and some overzealous ATF agent will attempt to make a Registry error into a SWAT visit. With President Clinton’s recent comments about adding many agents to “Go after bad gun dealers”, the automatic understanding is that this adminstration considers ALL gun owners to be “Bad”, and adding hundreds of untrained personnel to ATF and encouraging them to “Go get em” might be very counterproductive to justice. The addition of more law enforcement trained professionals would certainly be a welcome move, people who go after criminals- but in a rushed hiring, that is usually not the case. If the NFRTR is off as much as many of us suspect from our daily records dealing with ATF, then something certainly needs to be done to correct the Registry. SAR has a position of supporting an administrative driven amnesty program, but we are not holding our breath. Readers are cautioned to apply considerable restraint on this subject, any action would probably be many years away. Eric Larson has been bulldogging this subject for a number of years, and he has been writing about his progress. Herewith, is his opening salvo about where this came from, and why it is needed. The old saying about “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it” applies here as well. Opening The door on the NFA might lead to other actions that would not be so favorable, so we are proceeding with due caution on this. SAR would like to encourage intelligent discourse from both sides of this Issue, and readers are of course invited to send their thoughts to the Honorable Representatives listed at the end of the article. – Dan Shea

The Congress is now considering encouraging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to establish a new amnesty period to correct errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). On November 19, 1999, ATF submitted a list of what it terms 10 “Disadvantages” of establishing an amnesty period to the House Committee on Government Reform, and to the House Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations. Each committee asked me to review ATF’s statement and I did so on January 12, 2000, as shown in the copies of documents accompanying this article. I submitted my review to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, which also have oversight responsibility over ATF.

Because the decision of whether or not to establish an amnesty will probably be mainly based on policy considerations, I want to share some of my thoughts and research with readers of Small Arms Review, to assist in the public debates that will certainly occur. That the NFRTR data are significantly inaccurate and unreliable has been established. What remains now is to decide the best way to correct them.

In this article, I discuss recent events that led to putting serious discussions of a new amnesty on the policy table, and historical background regarding voluntary and amnesty registrations under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended, from 1934 to 1968. In a second article I will discuss the period from 1969 to 2000, and include materials from ATF’s appropriations hearing currently scheduled for March 9, 2000, a time frame too short for inclusion in this issue.

As many readers of Small Arms Review know, I have testified before the Congress several times about errors in the NFRTR. In 1997, the Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, thought my research was credible enough to request the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General (IG) to conduct the first-ever audit of the NFRTR by an entity outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). In late 1998, the IG released two audit reports on the NFRTR, each of which determined that the NFRTR data may not be accurate or reliable. Brief summaries of the IG reports were published in Small Arms Review. Both IG reports, my testimonies, and related materials are posted on James Bardwell’s NFA web page at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/index.html.

ATF has not released NFRTR statistics since 1996, discontinuing an annual practice that began in 1989. I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the data ATF provided the IG in conducting its audits. In a letter to me dated May 18, 1999 (which was published in Small Arms Review), ATF stated that NFRTR data it gave the IG was submitted “with the understanding” that the NFRTR data “was not accurate, because some of the report functions associated with the database are not working properly” [italics in original].

ATF’s statement is troublesome for at least three reasons. First, if the NFRTR software has errors in its “report functions,” data retrievals are probably not accurate or reliable either. Second, ATF’s statement confirms what virtually all Class III dealers have known for years-that the NFRTR does not always accurately reflect NFA firearms in the dealers’ inventories. Third, there is no statement in either the OIG report which confirms that ATF advised the OIG that the data “was not accurate.” In fact, one of the reports describes it as “the best available ATF data from the years 1934 through July 31, 1998, on the types of activity in the registry.”

According to a staff member I met with on November 30, 1999, the House Appropriations Subcommittee is going to require ATF to submit a plan, including priorities and a timetable, to correct errors in the NFRTR. The Subcommittee is very unlikely, he stated, to force ATF to establish another amnesty period or to involve itself in issues of NFA firearms classifications, which are other issues I have addressed in my testimonies. The Subcommittee has some jurisdiction regarding the errors the IG discovered, because it funds ATF’s firearm registration activities. The Subcommittee, he emphasized, is interested in errors in the NFRTR as a case of mismanaged administrative records, which may indicate waste or abuse in the administration of a government program, and because of the harsh penalties (up to 10 years in prison, and a $10,000 fine) for a single violation of the NFA. People who comply with the law, he added, deserve better assurances against being victimized by faulty records.

Further, the House Appropriations Subcommittee, and the House Committee on Government Reform are concerned about the whereabouts of an estimated more than 100,000 NFA firearms the IG determined are currently registered to people ATF has stated are dead. At the time this article was written (mid-January 2000), ATF has not stated how it plans to resolve this problem.

The only errors in the NFRTR that ATF may be correcting now is when Class III dealers or owners provide valid registration or transfer documents. In the case of NFA firearms in estates, it appears there have been cases that ATF has added firearms to the NFRTR for which it had no record, after being confronted by lawful heirs with valid NFA paperwork. In other cases, ATF has apparently confiscated the firearms, despite circumstantial evidence that the firearms probably were registered.

ERRORS IN THE NFRTR HAVE OPENED POLICY DISCUSSIONS INVOLVING AN AMNESTY

To make sure this point is clear, I would like to emphasize to Small Arms Review readers that the House Appropriations Subcommittee does not plan to force ATF to establish a new amnesty period. “We consider that to be part of the responsibility of the authorizing committees,” the staff member stated. “Those are the House Committee on Government Reform, and the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary.” People who want to support establishing an amnesty should contact those committees, as noted at the end of this article, as well as their Senators and Representative.

Under current law, no person may legally register an unregistered NFA firearm, except during an amnesty period. In the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, the Congress passed legislation which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to establish unlimited numbers of future amnesty periods (not to exceed 90 days per amnesty), and immunity from liability during such periods, “to contribute to the purposes” of the NFA. Things weren’t always this complicated.

NFA REGISTRATIONS FROM 1934 TO 1968

Under the original NFA, persons had 60 days to register NFA firearms they possessed on July 24, 1934 (the date that 1934 Act became effective), whether or not the firearm was in their possession on that date. Section 5(b) of the NFA stated if a person was shown to have possessed an unregistered NFA firearm for 60 days without having registered it, “such possession shall create a presumption that such firearm came into the possession of the defendant subsequent to the effective date of this act, but this presumption shall not be conclusive.”

Original registrations were made in duplicate original on “Form 1 (Firearms)” and submitted to one’s local “Collector of Internal Revenue.” The very first Forms 1 requested the registrant’s name; place of business or employment; home address; city or town; state; date firearm was acquired; and similar information.

The original registration was tax-free, and no photograph or fingerprints were required. After approval by the local federal tax collector, one copy of the Form 1 was returned to the registrant and the other was sent to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Some registrations (which occurred for many years after September 24, 1934) included a separate declaration why the firearm wasn’t previously registered, such as the owner being unaware it had to be registered, or that it was obtained through inheritance. Such registrations were treated in the same manner as tax delinquencies, but without any monetary penalties, because the NFA is a federal tax statute.

The Congress repealed section 5(b) effective September 1, 1952, but voluntary registrations were still allowed. Some registrations state that ATF allowed the voluntary registration of an unregistered NFA firearm if the Assistant Regional Commissioner, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division, where the unlawful possession occurred, determined that the possessor had committed a “nonwillful violation” of the NFA. Such registrations, which were made on ATF Form 1, are stamped “NONWILLFUL VIOLATION -APPROVAL RECOMMENDED.”

BACKGROUND OF THE 1968 AMNESTY PERIOD

The idea for an “amnesty period” did not originate with the GCA, or with a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled one of the registration provisions of the NFA to be unconstitutional. I first encountered the proposal for an amnesty when it was raised by the Treasury Department during Congressional hearings in 1965, at which Treasury proposed the registration of “destructive devices” such as bazookas, anti-tank rifles, land mines, hand grenades and similar items that were then not required to be registered. Treasury also wanted to register (or in some cases re-register) so-called Deactivated War Trophy (DEWAT) machine guns that had been deactivated or removed from purview of the NFA under a program that Treasury created and subsequently revoked. Finally, Treasury proposed to double the transfer tax on NFA firearms from $200 to $400 (the $5 transfer tax on an “Any Other Weapon” would have been doubled to $10).

The Congress ultimately revised the NFA under Title II of the GCA, in part, to remedy a constitutional defect in the original NFA. In January 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA’s registration provision was unconstitutional (Haynes vs. United States, 390 U.S. 85), because it required persons to register NFA firearms and for ATF to make these data available to local, state, and other federal officials upon request. But persons who possessed NFA firearms in violation of state or local law(s) risked the hazards of prosecution by supplying the registration information required by ATF, which violated their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

The Congress resolved this conflict by (1) prohibiting any information required to comply with the NFA to be used against a registrant or applicant “in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration, or the compiling of the records containing the information or evidence”; (2) establishing an amnesty period from November 2, 1968, to December 1, 1968, when persons could register unregistered NFA firearms with immunity from prosecution; and (3) prohibiting ATF from releasing any information about the registration status or ownership of any NFA firearm. During the 1968 amnesty, firearms were registered on Form 4467.

The 1968 amnesty is the first and only one the federal government has held so far. As was the case under the original NFA, fingerprints or photographs were not required to voluntarily register an NFA firearm during the 1968 amnesty period.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT FUTURE AMNESTY PERIODS

The Congress did not provide for the continuous voluntary registration of unregistered firearms after December 1,1968. In fact, on Form 4467 (“Registration of Certain Firearms During November 1968”) itself, the following statement (bold and underline are in original) appears above data block 1:

IMPORTANT This form cannot be accepted for registration of firearm except when received by Director during the time period November 2, 1968, through December 1, 1968.

Evidence of Congressional purpose is contained in the legislative history of the GCA, which states that “every firearm in the United States should be registered to the person possessing the firearm” by December 2, 1968, the day after the 30-day amnesty period expired. Some people have alleged that ATF used only 30 days of a 90-day amnesty period in 1968, and thus “owes” another 60 days; however, this belief is incorrect. The reason is that the Congress established a 30-day amnesty period in 1968, not a 90-day amnesty period.

In a separate provision of law, the Congress provided that the Secretary of the Treasury could establish unlimited numbers of future amnesty periods. The amnesty period statute (section 207(d) of the GCA) is codified in United States Statutes at Large (Volume 82, 1969, page 1236), as follows:

The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed 90 days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of this title.

Approximately 65,000 NFA firearms were registered during the 1968 amnesty period. In 1996, ATF reported that number was reduced to 57,223. According to the data ATF submitted to the IG the number as of July 31, 1998, was 57,238. The reduction of the 65,000 number has resulted, in part, from ATF administratively removing certain firearms from purview of the NFA since 1968. The Congress authorized ATF to remove NFA firearms from the NFA as collector’s items, after determining they are unlikely to be used as weapons. Increases in the number of amnesty registrations (such as from 57,223 to 57,238, as noted above), may be due to ATF adding firearms back into the NFRTR after being confronted with a valid registration document.

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

There were virtually no restrictions on registrations during the 1968 amnesty. On the reverse of Form 4467, Instruction 6 (entitled “Penalties and Immunity”) states, in part:

“The statute requiring you to register your firearm provides that information or evidence required to be submitted or retained by you (if a natural person) shall not be used against you directly or indirectly in any criminal proceeding with respect to a prior or concurrent violation of law. However, the statute does not preclude the use of any such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action under any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.”

In my judgement, it is likely that a new amnesty period would include some restrictions that were not imposed during the 1968 amnesty. For example, for many years ATF has routinely disapproved applications to transfer NFA firearms to otherwise qualified persons who reside in states where possession of such firearms is prohibited by state or local law. Interestingly, the 1968 amnesty allowed such registrations, and there is no provision in current federal law which would allow states in which the law is changed to prohibit the possession of certain NFA firearms, to determine how many such firearms are registered to persons living in those states. It is unrealistic to assume that persons living in states whose laws prohibit the possession of certain NFA firearms, would be allowed to register such firearms during a new amnesty period.

So far, in my opinion, ATF has taken an unwisely narrow view by apparently not considering the benefits of an amnesty period to correct errors in the NFRTR. For example, a well-publicized amnesty period would be a “win-win” situation in at least two important ways: (1) it would provide an opportunity to correct defective records, and thus strengthen ATF’s cases for violations of the law-it would be difficult to claim errors in the NFRTR as a defense; and (2) it would increase the confidence of law-abiding owners of NFA firearms that if their registration or transfer documents were destroyed through no fault of their own (such as in a fire, hurricane, burglary, flood or other unforeseen disaster), the Government would not prosecute them for unauthorized possession of an NFA firearm.

In my next article, I will analyze the registration of unregistered NFA firearms from 1969 to 2000, including a post-December 1, 1968, “amnesty” period which ATF conducted for a number of years, which the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General determined may have been illegal because ATF failed to publish the required notice in the Federal Register as required by law. I will also analyze the continuing (since March 1, 1994) “amnesty” for the registration of certain shotguns which ATF ruled to be destructive devices. I will also do an update on Congressional activity regarding the consideration of a new amnesty period. It is possible that the Congress will formally request the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General for an opinion on the extent, if any, that an amnesty period would correct the deficiencies it discovered during its audits of the NFRTR.

NOTE: Small Arms Review readers and others interested in political participation regarding the issues I have discussed should direct letters to the appropriate Congressional committees: The Honorable Jim Kolbe, Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, B-307 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515; The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20512; and The Honorable Bill McCollum, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, House Committee on the Judiciary, 207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515. The ZIP Code for your Senators is 20510, and 20515 for your Representative. Ladies and gentlemen of the Class III community: Please conduct yourselves as the ladies and gentlemen that you are. This is an opportunity to educate and to learn.