Tag Archives: “Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives”

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

20604352_857218177758900_2164590837463897148_n

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.

screen-shot-2016-12-14-at-8-54-53-pm

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

Breaking News: ATF To Issue Two Monumental Determinations

Today, at the NSSF/FAIR Trade Group’s 16th Annual Firearms Import/Export Conference, during the roundtable discussions, the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) stated that it is working on two monumental determinations regarding modular silencers and vertical/angled foregrips.

First, in relation to vertical/angled foregrips, it was disclosed that FATD has received numerous requests for determination. These requests vary greatly in form and substance and resulted in Branch Chief Curtis stating that some form of determination would be issued to the Firearms Industry; hopefully in the coming weeks. He even mentioned that at this point, the degree of the angled foregrip would have to be addressed in the determination, after review of all past determinations, including ones issued by his predecessors and ones which may be in conflict.

Second, in relation to modular silencers, FATD acknowledged that it currently has pending before it a request for determination of legality from a modular silencer manufacture. Division Chief Griffith and Branch Chief Curtis raised concern over the determination request and the issues that must be addressed, including whether modular silencer are legal, when reduced in size. In essence, the concern stems from there arguably existing additional silencer parts that are not part of the modular silencer’s configuration, when it is reduced in length. In the event that ATF would rule that modular silencers are generally lawful, it raises a plethora of other issues, including where the markings must be placed (which is interrelated to ATF’s currently pending rulemaking: ATF-29P) or whether such silencers would require either specific location markings or multiple markings.

This means that if you are a silencer manufacturer, who manufactures modular silencers, there is still time to submit legal arguments to FATD as to the general legality of modular silencers. If you wish to submit legal arguments, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG) today to discuss your options.

Although ATF was reluctant to state whether these determinations would be in the form of “policy determinations,” “guidance” or “formal rulings,”  and stated that it could not provide an exact timeframe for these determinations, it was stated that they are overdue and should be expected in the very near future.

Stay tuned for a blog article from Attorney Adam Kraut on other news and revelations from the 16th Annual Firearms Import/Export Conference!


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.

5 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

After 5 Years of Violating Its Own Regulations, ATF Publishes State Laws and Published Ordinances – Firearms (32nd Edition)

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 7.33.26 AM.png

ATF has published its long overdue update to the State Laws and Published Ordinances. The publication was announced to retailers who attended the NICS Retailer Day held at FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Center this past Monday.

Prior to the publication of this edition, ATF had violated its own regulations by consistently failing to “annually revise and furnish Federal firearms licensees with a compilation of State laws and published ordinances” since 2011. Had a licensee failed to do something the regulations required them to do for a period of 6 years, they would have almost certainly been found to have “willfully” violated the Gun Control Act.

The newest edition provides licensees and individuals with information that is current through January 2017. If a state has passed a new law since, it will not be reflected in this edition of the publication.

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 7.32.21 AM

Rather than publishing a large .pdf file, ATF opted to break each state into its own chapter. At the beginning of each state’s laws and ordinances, there is contact information for the ATF Field Division and State’s Attorney General.

The message from Acting Director Thomas Brandon does cause some concern.

Interpretation of a State or local law or ordinance:  Contact your State police, local law enforcement authority, or your State Attorney General’s office.

Anyone who has ever contacted law enforcement for the interpretation of laws knows that the police officers are not always correct in their interpretation of the law, as they are charged with enforcement rather than interpretation of it. However, the website, immediately under Mr. Brandon’s message, states “If you have any questions regarding State, County or local laws, please contact your state’s Attorney General.”

It’s nice to see ATF following their own regulations after a 6 year lapse in compliance.

1 Comment

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

Brace for Impact…ATF Clarifies Its Illogical Position on Users Shouldering Brace Equipped Pistols.

sigbracesbr

Readers may remember the blog article I wrote when ATF dropped a bombshell at SHOT Show 2015 where it released an open letter which stated that the brace was neither designed nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock and that the use of the brace as a shoulder stock constitutes a redesign of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. The letter concluded that “[a]ny individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal Law, and are hereby revoked,” which sent part of the firearms community into a panic, with the remaining portion laughing at such a ridiculous interpretation of the term “redesign”. (I was in the group laughing).

Screen Shot 2017-04-24 at 11.48.40 PM

However, today is the day where you can all rejoice as ATF, at the behest of SB Tactical, has reexamined its logic (or lack there of) utilized in the open letter. The new determination letter written by Marvin Richardson puts the unfounded fears of the past two years to rest.

The letter begins by describing the definition of a firearm under the National Firearms Act or NFA, the definition of a rifle or shotgun and that ATF has long held that a pistol with a barrel length of less than 16 inches and an attached shoulder stock is an NFA firearm pursuant to the plain language of the statute. ATF further states that “because the stabilizing brace was not designed as a shoulder stock, ‘use’ of the device as a shoulder stock would constitute a ‘redesign’ of the firearm to which it was attached, resulting in the classification of the firearm as a short-barrel rifle.

sigbrace

While I don’t have SB Tactical’s letter to ATF, it appears that they made some arguments that ATF’s definition of “use” was indefensible based on some arguments that appear eerily similar to ones I had advanced on this blog, such as misusing a common household item like a screwdriver as a pry bar. ATF responds that the result of accepting such an argument is that a device which was designed, marketed and intended for use only to shoot from the arm, could be attached to a firearm and shouldered without falling into the purview of the NFA. An argument that ATF was quick to expressly reject.

However, ATF continues on “[a]n accessory that can be attached to a firearm in any one of several configurations must be evaluated to determine whether attaching it in each of those configurations constitutes ‘making’ an NFA firearm…” ATF has previously concluded that attaching a handgun to a forearm brace does not “make” a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration that was approved by the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (“FATD”) it “is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder.”

Here is the part I really like (because ATF seems to adopt something I’ve been saying all along).

If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock — for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube…removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace — and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder…that person has…”redesigned” the firearm for purposes of the NFA.

(emphasis added). It would now seem that ATF has changed the definition of “redesign” it is utilizing to the actual layman’s term which means that you actually did something to change the design, rather than just simply misuse.

dictionary

The letter continues to explain

[t]o the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use” of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute a “redesign”, such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which is has been historically enforced.

In short, it seems that ATF has re-examined the perverted logic it used in the January 2015 Open Letter to come to a more rationale determination about the use of a product.

However, there is a note of caution with this happy tale. It is still possible to construct a short barreled rifle from a brace equipped pistol. The letter explains “…an item that functions as a stock if attached to a handgun in a manner that serves the objective purpose of allowing a firearm to be fired from the shoulder may result in ‘making’ a short-barreled rifle, even if the attachment is not permanent.”

As you may remember, I’ve contended that if you purchased a brace with the intent to build a gun that would be fired from the shoulder, if the barrel length is less than 16 inches or the overall length is less than 26 inches, you’ve just created a short barreled rifle. Why is that?

The NFA defines the term firearm to mean among other things “…(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;…”

The term rifle is defined as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.”

Key point being that it is intended to be fired from the shoulder. As such, you would have a firearm (Short Barrel Rifle) under the NFA which would be subject to its controls.

 

Did you find this 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.

coverpageelectionv2

Attending the NRA Annual Meeting in Atlanta? Be sure to stop by Room B403 on Thursday from 2 PM to 6 PM, Friday 8 AM to 6 PM or Saturday 8 AM to 4 PM to cast YOUR ballot for me (Adam Kraut) for the 76th seat of the NRA Board of Directors. All NRA Members (regardless of membership level) who have been members prior to March 9, 2017 can vote.

6 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Uncategorized

ATF Announces New Form 4473 – Firearms Transaction Record

screen-shot-2016-11-15-at-3-37-15-pm

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is reporting that on Monday, November 14, 2016, ATF announced that the new 4437 would be required on ALL firearms transactions beginning on January 16, 2017. As you may remember, I previously blogged about ATF soliciting comments on the proposed 4473 and then filed a Comment in Opposition to ATF’s Proposed Changes to the Form 4473. ATF responded to my comment in which it admitted to violating its own regulations but seemingly did not care.

It does seem that ATF took into consideration some of the comments FICG had filed in drafting the new form. One of the biggest problems I took issue with was the certification statement that the transferor (person transferring the firearm) had to sign.

Specifically, the individual signing the form is currently certifying that based upon

“…information in the current ATF Publication ‘State Laws and Published Ordinances’ – it is my belief that it is not unlawful for me to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise disposes of the firearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in Section A.”

The issue, as I previously blogged about, is that the ATF Publication “State Laws and Published Ordinances” has not been updated since January of 2011, in violation of ATF’s own regulations. See 27 CFR § 478.24.

ATF in the updated version of the form has changed the language to read that based upon

“…State or local law applicable to the firearms business — it is my belief that it is not unlawful for me to sell, deliver, transport, or otherwise dispose of the rearm(s) listed on this form to the person identified in Section A.”

Essentially, ATF changed the language so that the individual signing the form would not be responsible for referring to the guide that ATF is required to publish by its own regulations but rather be responsible for knowing the applicable state and local laws on their own.

Equally of interest is the new language found over question 11e. In case there was any confusion from licensees or individuals attempting to purchase firearms who utilize medical marijuana, there can be no more confusion. If an individual is a user of medical marijuana, they may not answer no to question 11e.

Marijuana leaf on a white background

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.

ATF did fail to take into consideration an important suggestion that FICG had made. There is no box on the form to indicate the firearm is being transferred to a legal entity. Rather than having licensees use a form, which the licensee has to make on their own, ATF could have simply added a spot on the form to indicate the firearm was being transferred to a legal entity. ATF stated that we were free to submit that suggestion again in the future, which is a comical response, because the reason they said they could not include it was that the form had already been drafted when the suggestion was made. It appears this ideal will turn into a Catch 22.

All in all, from my experience behind the gun shop counter, the revisions to the form (at least the part the transferee or purchaser will be responsible for completing) appear to make it a bit easier for individuals to follow and complete. While ATF could have done a better job listening to some of the suggestions which would have been helpful to licensees, it appears this version of the form is better than the last.

 

Did you find this blog helpful or informative? Be sure to share it with your friends by clicking the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Prince Law Offices, P.C. on Facebook by using the “Like” button to the right!

3 Comments

Filed under ATF, Uncategorized

BREAKING: BATFE Has Not Changed Anything Relating to Fingerprints for NFA Firearms

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-9-53-33-am

This morning TheFirearmBlog.com posted a story which stated that ATF had revised its ruling in relation to fingerprints for NFA firearms. The article claims that ATF now requires law enforcement agencies to take fingerprints rather than anyone qualified to. To support this position the article links to ATF’s Explosives website.

As always, the information is provided by an anonymous source. Had the source or TheFirearmBlog.com looked at where the information came from, they would have clearly been able to see that this is simply not true. I’m a bit disappointed in TheFirearmBlog.com because usually they are an excellent source for correct information.

The problem is that the link goes to the Explosives portion of the website, NOT the firearms part. This is the same link that SilencerCo had previously used to support its position that Silencer Shop’s Secure Identity Documentation (SID) system would not be acceptable for the purposes of NFA firearms when it had sent an email to a major distributor earlier this year.

The link the article points to states:

How do I get my fingerprints taken?

Fingerprints must be submitted on Fingerprint Identification Cards, FD–258 that have been issued by ATF. The fingerprint cards must contain the following ORI information: WVATF0900; ATF–NATL EXPL LIC, MARTINSBURG WV. These fingerprint cards may be obtained by contacting the Federal Explosives Licensing Center at 877-283-3352 or the ATF Distribution Center at 703-870-7526 or 703-870-7528. The fingerprint cards must be completed by your local law enforcement authority.

Last Reviewed September 23, 2016

Emphasis added. Further if we look at the website the link goes to, we can clearly denote it is in the explosives area by looking at the information found on the left and above the question.

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-9-43-04-am

ATF’s own Q&A relating to ATF 41F states that a licensee may take fingerprints provided they are properly equipped.

Q. May a Federal firearms licensee fingerprint a customer? As an FFL dealer, can we fingerprint our customers?

A. Fingerprints may be taken by anyone who is properly equipped to take them (see instructions on ATF Form 1, Form 4, Form 5, and Form 5320.23). Therefore, applicants may utilize the service of any business or government agency that is properly equipped to take fingerprints.”

As if there were any doubt, let us head to the regulations to review them.

In relation to the transfer of an NFA firearm, 27 C.F.R. § 479.85 Identification of Transferee states:

(a) If the transferee is an individual, such person shall:

….

(2) Attach to the application two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card). The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.

In relation to the making of an NFA firearm, 27 C.F.R. § 479.63 Identification of Applicant states:

(a) If the applicant is an individual, the applicant shall:

….

(2) Attach to the application two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card). The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.

(b) If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, trust, or corporation, such person shall:

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, attach to the application –

(iv) Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.

(b) If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, the applicant shall:

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, attach to the application –

(iv) Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.

Once again, we see there is no support for the proposition ATF changed anything. If you are applying to make or transfer an NFA firearm you can roll your own fingerprints, utilize Silencer Shop’s SID kiosk, have your FFL roll your fingerprints or head over to your local law enforcement to have them taken.

Did you find this blog article helpful? Be sure to share it with your friends by using the buttons below. Don’t forget to like Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Prince Law Offices, P.C. on Facebook by clicking the “like” button to the right.

2 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law, Gun Trusts, Uncategorized

ATF’s Shocking Position on “Makers” of Silencers/Suppressors, Especially in Relation to Solvent Traps

As many of our readers are aware, Attorney Adam Kraut and I attended the NSSF’s Import/Export Conference on August 2-3, 2016, for which we blogged about many of the statements made by ATF (and other federal agencies) in our blog – News from the Round Table Discussions at the NSSF Import/Export Conference. One issue that we did not discuss is ATF’s statements during the Round Table Discussions relating to ATF’s position on “makers” of silencers/suppressors, especially relative to what been called “solvent traps.”

For those who are unaware, there are a number of business offering “solvent traps,” which are designed to thread on the end of one’s barrel to capture the solvent, typically in an oil or fuel filter threaded on the end.

Oil Filter Suppressor 1Oil Filter Suppressor 2.jpg

While the use of these devices for purposes of collecting solvent is questionable, many of these companies advise their customers that if they want to be able to use the solvent trap as a silencer/suppressor, the customer must first file a Form 1 with ATF to make a silencer and receive approval, before utilizing the solvent trap for purposes of being a silencer. (While we would advise our clients to file a Form 1 and obtain approval of ATF prior to even purchasing a solvent trap or similar device, so to prevent against constructive possession charges, such is beyond the scope of this article).

Under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), 26 U.S.C. 5801, et seq, one who wishes to “make” an NFA firearm must file an application with the Attorney General, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5822. (Although the statute still references the Secretary (of the Treasury), when ATF was moved under DOJ in 2003, it changed to the Attorney General). Under the NFA, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5845, “make” is defined as to “include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter [26 USCS §§ 5801 et seq.]), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.”  While the NFA, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5841, does differentiate between a “maker” and a “manufacturer” in relation to how one is to initially register an NFA firearm  and does define “make” as mentioned previously, nothing in the NFA differentiates between the rights of a “maker” and those of a “manufacturer.”

Nevertheless, during a discussion on ATF-29p (ATF’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to Silencer/Suppressor engravings), ATF’s Mike Curtis and Earl Griffith with the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (“FATD”) stated that ATF views “makers” of silencers/suppressors differently than “manufacturers.” Specifically, the example of solvent traps was brought up, where they stated that ATF’s position is that a “maker” of a silencer cannot replace a silencer part without filing a new Form 1, paying another $200.00 and obtaining approval from ATF; whereas, a manufacturer, may lawfully replace a silencer part in a silencer it manufactured, provided that the part that is being replaced is destroyed. While there does not exist any specific statutory provision to support this contention, Mr. Curtis went on to explain that an individual who files a Form 1 to make a “solvent trap silencer” can only use the original oil/fuel filter that is installed and is barred from replacing a previously utilized oil/fuel filter with a new filter, absent a newly approved Form 1.

While Mr. Curtis did admit that to his knowledge ATF has not been asked to make a determination on a solvent trap silencer, he was explicitly clear that if a determination request was filed (or criminal charges brought against someone in such a situation), ATF would specifically find and contend that a “maker” of a silencer/suppressor may not repair/replace any part of the silencer/suppressor without first obtaining another approved Form 1.

Obviously, ATF’s position has a great impact on the Firearms Industry, as many individuals have made their own silencers/suppressors, long before the solvent trap silencers, and have been under the impression that like a manufacturer of a silencer/suppressor, they may lawfully replace a part in that silencer, provided that they destroy the part being replaced.

While Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG), a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., does not agree with ATF’s position, we believe it is extremely important to advise those who have Form 1’ed their own silencer/suppressor of ATF’s position, since non-compliance could result in federal charging.

12 Comments

Filed under ATF, Firearms Law