Tag Archives: ATF

Omnibus Spending Bill, H.R. 3354, Passes House and Provides Funding for Federal Firearms Relief Determinations – IN SENATE

Once again the House omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 3354, provides funding for ATF to conduct federal firearms relief determinations under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). Since 1992, Congress has specifically denied ATF the ability to utilize any funds they are appropriated to conduct these determinations. Further, ATF will not allow an individual to fund their own hearing, rendering a person’s options for relief at the federal level limited to Second Amendment as-applied challenges and/or presidential pardons.


Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 7.24.50 PM


It is important that you contact your Senators immediately and demand they pass the bill with the funding for federal firearms relief determinations in the final language.

Who is My Senator?

Screen Shot 2018-03-13 at 7.27.37 PM


If this bill were to pass with funding reinstated for the program, thousands of individuals who are currently prohibited may be able to once again exercise their Second Amendment rights.


Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

1 Comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Join the Fight to Stop the Regulation of Bump Stocks

As many of our clients and viewers are aware, Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., has submitted substantial comments in opposition to rulemaking entered into by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and spearheaded the opposition to ATF-41P. Unfortunately, as it appears that ATF intends to move forward expeditiously with a proposed rule in relation to bump stocks (and potentially other firearm accessories which purportedly permit or result in higher cyclic rates by the operator), we’re asking for your support so that we can prepare a comprehensive comment with appropriate expert reports, so that if ATF enacts any form of regulation, we will be able to challenge it in court.

Bump Stock.jpg

Although we do not yet have the text of any proposed rule, we already know that ATF intends to propose a rule, which will ban, at a minimum, bump stocks. There are also concerns, depending on the language proposed by ATF, whether it could impact competition triggers and other tangentially related parts and accessories. Hence, it is imperative that we begin retaining experts to provide expert opinion on functionality of bump stocks and other parts and accessories, which could be included in any proposed rule. We also must begin formulating all arguments in opposition so that we can ensure that all issues can later be raised in court, if necessary.

Thus, we have set up a page on our website – Challenging Bump Stock Rulemaking – where we have further information about the issue. Unfortunately, we can’t do this without your support. Unlike the Government, we don’t have unlimited funds at our disposal.

Anyone wishing to donate can:

  • Pay via our secure website: Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. – Please place “Bump Stock Regulation” in the reference field
  • Mail donations to: Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., 646 Lenape Rd, Bechtelsville, PA 19505; or,
  • Call our office at 888-202-9297.

When submitting your donation, please include a note or inform the staff that you are donating in relation to the Bump Stock Regulation.

For those interested in some of the comments that FICG has drafted and filed on behalf of Industry Members and itself in opposition to rulemaking by ATF, see:

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF – 41P – ATF’s proposed (and later enacted) rule to impose additional burdens on fictitious entity applications.

FICG Files Comment on behalf of David Goldman, Esq. of GunTrustLawyer.com in Opposition to ATF-41P

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF 51P – ATF’s proposed rule to ATF’s to amend the definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.”

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF 29P on Behalf of Dead Air Armament – ATF’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding silencer engravings.

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Changes to the 4473 Form



Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

Leave a comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law

Pennsylvania State Police Reiterate ATF Position on Medicinal Marijuana


It should come to no surprise that the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) have issued a position statement in relation to Pennsylvania’s new card carrying medicinal marijuana users. Once again, individuals who seek to use marijuana for medicinal purposes are forced to choose between the comfort they find in medicine or their constitutional rights.

Marijuana is still a Schedule I narcotic under federal law, which means that regardless of what state law says, at the federal level, it is still illegal to possess. Medicinal marijuana has grown in popularity since California legalized it in 1996 with a majority of states legalizing it in some form. However, the federal government has not taken any action to legalize it for medicinal purposes and DEA recently declined to reclassify it.

Medical marijuana card holders in Pennsylvania should take note of the following. It has been ATF’s position since 2011, that if an individual is merely in possession of a medical marijuana card, they are prohibited from purchasing a firearm. This is based on the theory that the transferor would have “reasonable cause to believe” that the person is an “unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance.” In other words, it could be inferred that you fit that category by merely possessing a license, regardless of whether you obtained it for actual use or a political statement.

The statement also tells individuals that “[i]t is unlawful for you to attempt to purchase a firearm under Federal law and you will be denied during your Pennsylvania State Police background check, due to prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3),” which would seem to suggest that the information of medical marijuana users will be contained in the PSP’s central repository of information and/or sent to NICS.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I have not researched the medical marijuana law to see if that is the case or whether there are HIPAA concerns, etc., this is just a theory.

The PSP also states that an individual is unable to lawfully obtain a License to Carry Firearms (“LTCF”) and that “[t]he sheriff should not process your application if you truthfully indicate to the sheriff that you are the holder of a Medical Marijuana Card.” Moreover, the PSP continue to say “you will be denied during the Pennsylvania State Police background check, which occurs as part of the LTC application or renewal process,” again suggesting information pertaining to medical marijuana users are retained by the PSP and/or transmitted to NICS.

Perhaps most interesting about the PSP’s statement is this

It is unlawful for you to keep possession of any firearms which you owned or had in your possession prior to obtaining a Medical Marijuana Card, and you should consult an attorney about the best way to dispose of your firearms.  Again, this is due to prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

Essentially, PSP is contending that you are an unlawful user of a controlled substance if you obtain a medical marijuana card. However, possession of a card does not automatically equate to the use of the substance. So for individuals who seek to obtain a medical marijuana card for a political statement, be aware of the PSP’s position on the matter. That is one that will eventually require litigation.


Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law, Uncategorized

ATF to Publish Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Re: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices

EDIT 3: Publication date is now scheduled for 12/26/2017. Deadline for submissions would be Thursday, January 25, 2018.

EDIT 2: Document has been reposted. Link is working again.

EDIT: It appears the document has been removed “The Office of the Federal Register withdrew this document after it went on public inspection due to technical errors.” I’ll be keeping my eye for a repost.


Tomorrow, ATF will publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the application of the definition of machinegun to “Bump Fire” stocks and other similar devices. As many have feared, it appears that the regulatory agency is soliciting information to help draft a rule which may potentially lump bump fire stocks, binary triggers, etc., within the definition of machinegun.

Screen Shot 2017-12-21 at 11.24.47 AM

Comments are due thirty (30) days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Assuming that nothing goes awry with the publication tomorrow, that would mean any comment you wish to submit in opposition to this advance notice would need to be submitted by 11:59 PM on Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:59 PM on Thursday, January 25, 2018. While one might expect an extra day to be provided to place the deadline on a Monday, agency rules govern. ATF confirmed via telephone that the deadline was Sunday.

ATF is specifically seeking feedback from consumers regarding the following:

  1. In your experience, where have you seen these devices for sale and which of these has been the most common outlet from which consumers have purchased these devices (e.g., brick and mortar retail stores; online vendors; gun shows or similar events; or private sales between individuals)?
  2. Based on your experience or observations, what is (or has been) the price range for these devices?
  3. For what purposes are the bump stock devices used or advertised?

The ATF has a broad range of questions for manufacturers including:

  1. For what use or uses have you marketed bump stock devices?
  2. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what would you expect to be the impact on your gross receipts for calendar year 2018?
  3. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, what other economic impact would you expect (e.g., storage, unsellable inventory)?
  4. If ATF classified bump stock devices as “machineguns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, do you believe that there would be a viable (profitable) law-enforcement and/or military market for these devices? If so, please describe that market and your reasons for believing such a viable market exists.

The ATF asks retailers similar questions.

All comments must:

  1. reference docket number 2017R-22;
  2. be legible (I expect most submission will be done electronically); and
  3. include the commenter’s complete first and last name and full mailing address.

ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

If you’re a consumer, I suggest you submit a comment to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. For helpful hints on how to draft a comment, take a look at the information in the article I wrote for Recoil Web, although some of that information would be more applicable for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

If you represent a manufacturer or a retailer and want to inquire about obtaining services for the drafting of a comment, please contact the office as soon as possible to ensure sufficient time to draft a comment.


Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Are PA Medical Marijuana Patients Prohibited From Possessing and Purchasing Firearms and Ammunition?

Last week, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf announced that the Medical Marijuana Program Patient Registry had reached 3,800 registered patients in its first week of registration. While individuals may be able to lawfully possess marijuana in Pennsylvania under Pennsylvania law if the person is registered on the Patient Registry and has been approved for use by a qualified doctor, Federal law still provides that the possession and/or use of marijuana is unlawful, as a Schedule 1 drug.

Although we have written extensively about the fact that marijuana is federally prohibited and that ATF revised the ATF 4473 form to reflect such, few individuals appear aware that they lose their right to keep and bear arms if they are a current user of marijuana, even if approved for use by a qualified doctor. (As many people are confused, a doctor cannot prescribe marijuana, due to Federal law, but can suggest to a patient that he/she utilize marijuana).

On the most recent version of the ATF 4473, it reflects under question 11e.:

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

As a result, more than 3,800 residents of Pennsylvania have presumptively become prohibited under Federal law from possession and purchasing firearms and ammunition.

Moreover, individuals who live in households where a registered medical marijuana patient resides, need to consider the potential ramifications of their own rights to keep and bear arms.

If you are concerned about whether you have lost your right to keep and bear arms as a result of Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana program or your residing in a residence with a medical marijuana user,  contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

ATF releases 2017 Report on Firearm Commerce in the United States (Numbers, Bar Graphs, and Pie Charts!)

Screen Shot 2017-08-23 at 7.35.26 AM.png

ATF has released its annual Firearms Commerce in the United States Statistical Update for 2017. As my one friend put it, “[t]his is like fantasy football stats for silencer dorks.” It’s actually like that for a lot more than the silencer crowd, but I digress.

The Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) is only current through 2015. This is because AFMER data is not published until one year after the close of a calendar reporting year because the information provided by those whole filed a report is protected from immediate disclosure by the Trade Secrets Act. Which is why you see a two year lag (2015 data reporting in the beginning of 2016 and a year delay between its reporting and publication).

Screen Shot 2017-08-23 at 8.10.14 AM

In 2015, there were a total of 9,358,661 firearms manufactured. This was up from 2014’s number of 9,050,626 by about 3.3%. Interestingly the number of exports fell by about 20%, from 420,932 in 2014 down to 343,456.

The total number of imports rose from 3,930,211 in 2015 to 5,137,771 in 2016 (imports are not included not the AFMER report which is why the numbers are more current). Interestingly, it was handguns that account for a little over 1.2 million more firearms imported in 2016. And as you may have guessed Austria leads the charge with handguns imported, accounting for over 1.3 million coming into the country. Probably a safe bet that Glock is responsible for the majority of those.

Screen Shot 2017-08-23 at 8.11.25 AM.png

For those of you NFA junkies, in 2016, there was $6,018,000 in occupational taxes paid (SOTs). This is up again from the year prior and slightly under double that of 2012. Taxes paid were $62,596,000 for 2016, almost double the year before (thanks ATF 41F). Interestingly, there were 6,547 record checks, which means that ATF searched the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) that many times to determine if a firearm was possessed lawfully or if the transfer was performed lawfully.

Screen Shot 2017-08-23 at 8.12.01 AM.png

In 2016, there were 49,985 Form 1s and 133,911 Form 4s filed. These numbers were up from the year prior, but not by a significant margin for the Form 4s (Form 1s were up by about 17,000). While the number of forms process by the NFA Branch was up about a million from the year prior, it was the Form 2s that accounted for almost half of that number. For those that are unaware, Form 2s are used by industry to give notice to ATF that they produced or imported a NFA firearm.

As far as NFA firearms registered by state, Texas leads with 588,696. California follows with 344,622. Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania round out the top 5. Interestingly, Connecticut leads the charge with registered machine guns, sitting at 52,965. However, when you consider law enforcement, it starts to make sense.


There are currently 57,345 licensed collectors of curios or relics, making it the most popular license type. It is followed closely by dealer in firearms, of which there are 56,754 active licenses. ATF reports 137,464 active licenses. Texas holds 10,954 of those licenses, making it the state with the most.

In 2016, 16 license applications were denied. This number is down almost 50% from the year prior. As for compliance inspections, ATF performed 9,790 last year. This equates to 7.1% of all licensees in 2016 being inspected.

As always, the annual report helps give some insight as to ongoings within the firearms industry.



Are you an NRA Life Member or an annual member of the past 5 years? I need your help to be placed back on the ballot for the 2018 NRA Board of Directors Election. Time is running out to sign a petition to nominate me as a candidate. Download a petition here. It will only take two minutes of your time. For more information visit my website: adamkraut.com.


Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.


Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

News from the 16th Annual NSSF Import/Export Conference in Washington, D.C.


Attorney Joshua Prince and I attended the Annual NSSF Import/Export Conference in Washington, D.C. this week. There were a variety of presentations that were given on a variety of topics including: Federal Search Warrants and Regulatory Site Visits, Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, Foreign Military Sales, ATF Panel Discussion, and Round Table Discussions (the best part in my opinion) on Day 1. On Day 2’s agenda is Prohibited and Embargoed Countries, DDTC Presentation on Information Technology, and a presentation from DDTC on Licensing and Agreements.

As most of our readers are more concerned with up-to-date statistics and information from ATF, this blog article will only address those and information learned at the Round Table Discussions.

ATF Panel

Sitting on the ATF Panel giving updates were: Marvin Richardson (Assistant Director, Enforcement Programs and Services), Curtis Gilbert (Deputy Assistant Director Enforcement Program and Services), Andrew Graham (Deputy Assistant Director Industry Operations), Earl Griffith (Chief of the Firearms Ammunition Technology Division), Alphonso Hughes (Division Chief, National Firearms Act Division), Gary Taylor (Firearms and Explosives Services Division), Andrew Lange (Division Chief of the Office of Regulatory Affairs), and Krissy Carlson (Division Chief of the Firearms and Explosives Industry Enforcement Programs and Services).

Industry Operations

Andy Graham stated that there are currently 791 Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs) not including the administrative staff. In 2018 they hope to add 48 more. There are two classes, one in February and one in July.

There are currently ~1,100 firearm importers and ~230 destructive device importers. There are about 162 active inspections occurring with regard to those licensees.

Office of Regulatory Affairs

Andrew Lange announced regulations.atf.gov, a website that had the most up to date regulations pertaining to ATF. The website is actually the first government website that I’ve perused that was functional and useful! The information is pulled directly from the Federal Register, so if ATF implements a final rule, it will automatically update.

The website features the ability to see the history of a particular regulation (so you can see the changes over time) and defined terms are hot linked so they will populate on the right hand side, meaning you can read a provision and see the definition of terms which are defined at the same time (allowing a reader to have better context or understanding). Even cooler is that it links to ruling that were issued. I’m genuinely impressed with the system. If only the eForms system worked as well.

Phase 2 is expected to be rolled out in September of this year.

Screen Shot 2017-08-03 at 7.33.53 PM.png

Firearms Ammunition Technology Division

Earl Griffith introduced the Firearms Ammunition Technology Division or “FATD”. They hired six more firearms enforcement officers who have now completed a significant amount of training (if I recall it was about a year to a year and a half, I didn’t write down the length of time), bringing the total to twelve. They are responsible for the evaluation of samples sent to FATD.

Currently, FATD is running about 30-90 days on most evaluations. They have currently issued about 800 marking variances which are taking about 30 days to issue. So far this year there have been about 250 product evaluations.

NFA Division

As was published in the most recent ATF FFL Newsletter, the NFA Branch has been transformed into the National Firearms Act Division, which became effective April 3, 2017. The Division will be led by Division Chief Alphonso Hughes, the previous Chief of the Firearms and Explosives Services Division. The new division, consists of two branches – the Industry Processing Branch (IPB), dealing with industry and the Government Support Branch (GSB) dealing with government related matters.

Alphonso stated that the NFA Division was going to undergo a full evaluation of the internal business processes in the first quarter of 2018. It would involve outside eyes looking in.

The former 2-3 month time period for application data entry has now been reduced to ~72 hours. For those with access to eForms…use them. eForms result in faster turnaround on approvals. While they can’t auto approve at this point, they are automating as much as possible. Form 2-3s are hovering around 10 days or under (eForms from my understanding).

41F – Everyone’s favorite topic (sarcasm if you couldn’t tell). There were ~280,000 applications received from the announcement of the final rule until it went into effect. That was about a full years worth of applications. They are on the downward slope of pre 41F paperwork.

ATF is working overtime to process these forms. They are currently working 7 days a week to reduce the wait times and are literally working overtime hours to accomplish that goal (up to 20 hours per person in addition to their standard work week).

Pre 41F, they were receiving ~35,000 forms a week and processing about 8,000 forms a week. Post 41F they were receiving about 5-6,000 form a week and processing 8-9,000 forms a week. They are currently predicting a 6-7 month turn around if you submit a form today.

In January, six additional examiners were hired. They are going to continue to push for resources in FY 2018-19.

Alphonso was also asked about the possibility of the reopening of the MG registry. He replied that it was not within the NFA division’s purview to address the issue (and he isn’t wrong. The original statutory language read “The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such periods of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purpose of this title.” 82 Stat. 1235, § 207(d). As ATF was transferred to DOJ, the power would now be held by the Attorney General. See 27 CFR 479.101(b)).

Firearms and Explosives Industry Enforcement Programs and Services

Last, but not least, was Krissy, who stressed eForms usage for industry. She was also asked about the possibility of the HPA passing. As you probably guessed, this is in the hands of Congress and not ATF. ATF holds no opinions on proposed legislation.

Round Tables

ATF Firearms and Explosives Industry Division 

I followed up on a question that arose last week at the NICS Retailer Event at FBI. While there, someone had asked about the new 4473 and question 12.d.2, specifically whether or not someone had to complete the question.

Screen Shot 2017-08-03 at 8.07.22 PM

The answer I received was “yes”, the form must be completed. This question has seemed to cause a lot of confusion on the new form.

There was also the question of “sex” on the 4473. Some states have now recognized a new gender. ATF has provided limited guidance, simply saying the individual has to complete the form. However, it is suggested, after discussion with ATF, if a licensee is unsure or uncomfortable with the person’s response, that they can document the transaction, etc. in the notes section of the 4473. A photocopy of the identification (a standard practice in a  lot of shops anyway) is suggested. ATF is still in the preliminary stages of looking into this issue and only provided guidance in relation to the question must be answered.

NFA Division

A common question I receive is whether or not you have to notify the NFA Branch of a change in configuration. I was informed that an individual can write a letter to ATF adding another configuration to a registered receiver. For instance, if the Form 1 or 4 is approved for a 10.5″ 5.56 gun and a person has a 8″ 300 Blackout upper, they can notify the NFA branch of the additional configuration. It was strongly encouraged that an individual do such, even if the change is temporary.

It was reported that the NFA Branch had little to no issues with the electronic fingerprint submissions. They advised that most prints they received were fine.

Lastly, for those curious about the process within the NFA Branch regarding trust applications, I was given this simplified process.

The application is received along with the payment. Payment is cashed and the data entry occurs. After the data is entered (it is kept in the order received) it is submitted to NICS for a check. Obviously the more Responsible Persons the more room for error, delays, etc. If a delay comes back on one person, the entire application is held up. This work is done by the legal assistants. By the time it hits the examiner, it is ready for approval or denial.

As I’m writing this, it I realized I forgot to ask about the disparity between approvals and postmark dates.

Firearms Ammunition Technology Division

Form 1 silencer builders have been in a constant state of argument as to what they can or can’t do. As of where we stand today, it is the opinion of FATD that a Form 1 maker CANNOT repair their silencer. They cannot replace a baffle if it is destroyed, repair a damaged endcap, or shorten the silencer. While not the answer the community wants to hear, that is the current position. Essentially, you’d have to file a new Form 1 and build a new silencer.

For those wondering about the new Autoglove, FATD has not seen a sample of that product.

If you’re thinking about building a clone of a firearm that has been approved as a non NFA firearm (ala Tac 14 or Shockwave, etc.) there is no requirement that you submit a determination request (which is true of any domestically built firearm). However, it was strongly encouraged to ensure your compliance.


Did you find this blog article helpful or informative? Be sure to pass it along to a friend who may benefit from the information by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group on Facebook by clicking the “Like” button on the right.


Don’t forget, petitions for the 2018 NRA Board of Directors are being circulated. If you would like to learn more about me and sign a petition to place me on the ballot for this year’s election visit my website: adamkraut.com.

1 Comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized