13 replies to this topic

[Historic Arms LLC]

Zorro, No conspiracy from my point of view. There is however some management and CCO office personnel who do have a serious grudge..legitimate or otherwise. There has been some actions by ATF management and CCO office personnel that can only be described as vindictive and taken to the extreme. After reading what those same folks do to you and your coworkers, we are all in the same boat. I can respect your opinion regardless if I agree with it. I think that is what is so important about this website, we can freely discuss issues and concerns as ATF employee's and FFL's and it's free! and free flowing. As to the specifics to your recent post, since I felt it may be a little off topic I PM'd you. Len

[Zorro]

DRAT - You have ruined our conspiracy. We would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you darned meddling kids! As usual, you are your own worst enemy. You have now created another conspiracy where reality defies your claim. If bankruptcy of Len Savage was the goal why the kid gloves on the civil suit? Taking Atlanta as the venue instead of DC which would have posed financial and logistical hardship and unless something has changed, no pursuit of restitution to the taxpayers for the wasted money defending a frivilous suit? Also, has any administrative or criminal action been pursued as a result of Mr. Savage's refusal to register a machinegun for how many months? Perhaps those moves in themselves are part of the plan - to throw off suspicion of the conspiracy? Funny how this order hasn't been posted on the usual internet outlets. Maybe an oversight? By the way, it's no big secret you are sending out feelers on a case which you have zero knowledge of. Careful of the slander monster if you and your pals make the allegation of criminal activity on your new target I hope you can actually prove it. HINT: Attorneys generally don't advertise details on cases in which they represent clients to tinfoil fueled conspiracy buffs. If you have evidence, put it out there. Are you just looking for info prematurely or attempting to obstruct the investigation?

[avatar]

Evaluating the legally incorrect letter signed by the Chief of ATF's Firearms Technology Branch to Len Savage dated October 27, 2010, requires answering several questions:

1. Is the FTB Chief, who has responsiblity for classifying firearms submitted to ATF by firearms manufacturers for evaluation, unfamiliar with NFA "firearm" definitions and how to apply them?

2. Did the FTB Chief sign the October 27, 2010, letter, without a review of the letter by ATF Chief Counsel's office to make sure it was legally correct?

3. Given the 2010 federal court case involving the legal classification of the "Defendant Firearm" manufactured by Len Savage, is it likely that any firearm Mr. Savage submitted to ATF for evaluation would not receive dilgent scrutiny; that ATF's classification of it be thoroughly researched; and that the October 27, 2010, letter, would not be subjected to even more review by, for example, the Office of Enforcement Services and Programs, and the ATF Deputy Director (Chief Operating Officer)?

Worrying about any of the above three questions is like worrying that the Milky Way is going to go out.

In my judgment, ATF's October 27, 2010, letter, is a cynical, primitive attempt to bait Mr. Savage into spending a lot of money to manufacture, sell and distribute a product ATF has just authorized as a perfectly legal Title I firearm that is not subject to the NFA, knowing full well that (1) the firearm is, in fact, legally a Destructive Device and could be nothing other than a Destructive Device, and (2) should Mr. Savage actually manufacture, sell and distribute the "submitted firearm," ATF would have only to sit back for a year or so, lick its chops, and then send Mr. Savage a "reconsideration" letter notifying him that, in fact, well, ATF "reconsidered" the October 27, 2010, letter, and has decided that the "submitted firearm" is the Destructive Device that it always was. Doing that would render virtually all of the firearms Mr. Savage manufactured to be contraband, and require that all those sold or distributed be tracked down and seized and forfeited, or destroyed, an action that would certainly affect Mr. Savage's business and reputation (it could bankrupt him, and people would be reluctant to buy anything else from him).

The ATF staff whom I believe conspired to deliberately authorize sending Mr. Savage a legally incorrect letter would probably be in the clear, because (1) the recent decision involving the "Defendant Firearm" authorizes ATF to be able to change its mind about a firearm classification at any time, and (2) in any case, it is a long established practice for Federal Law Enforcement entities to mislead, deceive and flat out lie to people in efforts to encourage them to break the law and/or entrap them, under the theory that if such people did so, ATF was only providing an opportunity for them to commit crimes they would commit anyway. Never mind that any activity in this instance would have originated from a manufacturer asking ATF a straight-up question accompanied by a "submitted firearm" for ATF's technical evalation and classification.

The November 20009 FFL Newsletter, asserting as it does that a "Pistol Grip Firearm" is not a shotgun, places the FTB Chief's letter to Len Savage in a particularly unfortunate light for ATF as an institution. Because the October 27, 2010, letter, the FTB Chief signed is legally incorrect, there is now a volcano boiling under him (the posts here are only wisps of steam at this point; they will increase in duration and intensity as the letter becomes more widely known and distributed). When the volcano bursts forth at last, in the form of a "reconsideration" letter the FTB Chief will undoubtedly issue and sign, it is likely going to be the FTB Chief who gets its blast, and will be fried, broiled, roasted and fricaseed for purportedly having exhibited such abominable judgment (if not professional incompetence; a case could be made for that, with a straight face). The ATF Chief Counsel and his retinue, who no doubt concocted that preposterous original letter in the vain hopes that Mr. Savage would be dumb enough to fall for its legally defective counsel, will probably chuckle, knowing full well they will not be held accountable, and thus will fathom the full depths of their necrotic joke.

This is worth thinking about. I don't believe the FTB Chief is a stupid person who doesn't understand the various definitions of an NFA "firearm." The FTB Chief is probably a hard-working civil servant with a spouse, perhaps a child or children in college, bills to pay, a mortgage and perhaps an aging parent to worry about, who isn't independently wealthy, needs his job and a steady paycheck and the retirement benefits he has earned, and got his neck stood on by ATF Chief Counsel and his retinue. "You will sign this letter," the FTB Chief was probably told, "because it's your job to sign these letters. If you don't, there's a dozen guys lined up to take your job, who will sign the letter in a New York City minute." Unfortunately, ATF Chief Counsel and his retinue DIDN'T tell the FTB Chief: "If you sign this letter, you are affirming and providing valid and reliable evidence of your professional and technical incompetence, and thus make yourself expendable, which is what we want because we don't want to accept the responsibility for telling you to write and sign a legally incorrect letter that represents the official position of ATF."

How much of this horrible behavior goes on at ATF? Is it so institutionalized that it has become automatic? Is this how ATF has decided to implement NFA enforcement policy? I'm sure this isn't the only example of ATF Chief Counsel, and ATF top management, tossing one of its own under the bus because it is inconvenient to tell the truth. It is no wonder that some of the postings on CleanUpATF have a primal scream quality about them.

Is this any way for a federal law enforcement agency with the solemn responsbility of enforcing this nation's gun control laws, and legally classifying firearms that federally licensed firearms manufacturers submit to ATF for technical examination, to conduct the public business?

It can only get worse for ATF, institutionally, from here. The reason is that once the FTB Chief issues a letter of "reconsideration" that the "submitted firearm" is in fact legally the Destructive Device it always was, it is a small jump to the next step --- what about (1) the tens of thousands of Destructive Device firearms (i.e., with bore diameters that exceed 1/2") that were manufactured, sold and distributed as AOWs with ATF's approval at each stage? and (2) the hundreds of thousands of "Pistol Grip Firearms" that were manufactured, sold and distributed as Title I firearms with ATF's approval at each stage? The only two apparent ways out of the corner into which a few misguided people at ATF have painted the agency (these two ways are a change in the law, or establishing an amnesty to register millions of firearms ATF has suddenly deemed are unregistered "Destructive Devices") will alarm and excite the Congress (Republicans and Democrats in equal measures, perhaps for different reasons), the White House, the NRA, the Brady people, as well as millions of Elmer Fudds who simply won't understand why, in effect, the Government wants to seize the guns they have lawfully owned and used for years, if not decades. Congratulations to the ATF people who gleefully tried to be clever by authorizing a legally incorrect letter to be send out in the name of ATF (that was sarcasm). These people could hardly have done anything more to harm ATF as an institution.

ATF has, unquestionably, been "harmed" by the foregoing actions. What's left now is what the military refers to as "a damage-limiting operation." Let us hope that damage-limiting operation is conducted with a bit more thought and consideration of the legalities involved. I'm sure the Department of Justice is beyond horrified about this.

If the legally incorrect October 2l7, 2010, letter, the FTB Chief wrote, signed and sent to Len Savage does not represent "fraud, waste and abuse," then perhaps the Constitution should also be given over to the tender mercies of ATF Chief Counsel and his retinue, to be insouciantly consigned to an ATF paper shredder.

Have you made a decision either way yet? Personally, I wouldn't risk it...

[EFI LLC]

There is also a possible scenario that if I began production...

Have you made a decision either way yet? Personally, I wouldn't risk it...

[avatar]

I’d like to respond to what Lone Wolf said about the Destructive Device issue, what Zorro said about riling the Elmer Fudds, and Doc Holiday’s observation: “Although these are serious issues, good prudent policy making can work thru it. I agree with both sides, so why aren’t both sides sitting down to make good sound rulings that protect the law abiding citizens right to have firearms and shit hammers the bad guys?”

I think there are pertinent materials for all three of them, and other CleanUpATF readers, discussed at http://www.nfaoa.org/resources.html (go to the section entitled “National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended”, click on the “+” symbol to open it, and see the entry entitled “ATF Letter Ruling means that a “pistol grip firearm” is a Destructive Device”). To it I’d add the following:

A. With three exceptions, any firearm with a bore diameter exceeding .50” (pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle, AOW, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun) is a Destructive Device under the NFA. The three exceptions are (1) a shotgun that ATF deems particularly suitable for sporting purposes, (2) a signaling device like a flare gun, or a line throwing device as long as it is used as a signaling device or a line throwing device (i.e., not if it is used with shotgun or destructive device ammunition), and (3) according to 26 USC 5845(f): "... any other device which the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes."
B. ATF has not uniformly enforced/applied the Destructive Device statute since it became effective November 1, 1968. One effect is that some number of firearms manufacturers have manufactured and sold many thousands of certain firearms as AOWs that are legally classified as Destructive Devices. It raises the possibility that when IOIs do compliance inspections, they could legally assert that certain AOWs they encounter are incorrectly classified, and write up the FFL for having an incorrect NFRTR firearm description. I’m not saying that will happen --- but if ATF decided to enforce the Destructive Device provision of the NFA, it certainly could happen.

C. Regarding the Elmer Fudds, I think ATF is in total control because it appears that ATF is the only federal LE entity that can bring charges of violating firearms laws in Federal District Court, so if ATF doesn’t bring, for example, a “Pistol Grip Firearm” case in which ATF alleges it is an AOW because somebody concealed it, a Federal District Judge won’t have an opportunity to instruct a Jury about current law (the definition of a Destructive Device). I think the danger would be in ATF bringing such a case that a Federal District Judge, confronted with federal law currently on the books, could not legally ignore the Destructive Device classification even if ATF did or does---PARTICULARLY if ATF contends that a “Pistol Grip Firearm” is NOT a shotgun. It is also the case that most Federal District Judges aren’t going to be happy about making rulings that would cause massive social disruption, unless there is some compelling reason to do so.

The above issues raise legitimate questions that appear to have provoked a massive hibernation on the part of ATF, the Department of Justice, the NRA, the Brady people and seemingly virtually everybody else, except a few people who seem intent on quickly setting the ATF woods on fire without thinking through what certainly would be Hellish consequences. I think part of the reason is that during the past 15 to 20 years, and particularly more recently, anybody seen as asking ATF “questions” gets labeled as a troublemaker because ATF answers are seen as a bunch of trouble, regardless of whether the question is legitimate, and whatever decision ATF makes is blamed on the person who asked the question --- it is a lot safer to do that, than to publicly criticize ATF using one’s real name. ATF consciously or unconsciously reinforces this sort of mentality when it makes contradictory rulings or selectively enforces the law, in some cases out of apparent institutional or personal anger at individuals rather than the technical or legal principles involved. Rightly or wrongly, I think many people fear that ATF will make decisions, “reconsider” those decisions, and that it leaves (1) firearms manufacturers wondering what products they manufacture might be suddenly deemed illegal, and (2) ordinary people who collect and/or use firearms for sporting or recreational purposes wondering if ATF is going to rule, for example, the “Pistol Grip Firearm” they have otherwise lawfully owned for many years, to be contraband. In fact, that is already the case in law in some instances, but ATF has not enforced the Destructive Device statute.

Is it a good thing for ordinary people who collect and/or use firearms for sporting or recreational purposes, or for licensed firearms manufacturers, to be afraid to ask ATF legitimate questions about firearms? I don’t think so, because it fosters questions about “intent” on both sides, and when left to the imagination it is human nature to assume the worst. Again, I don’t think that’s a good thing.

Viewed from a distance, for example, what is the difference of getting shot with a 12 gauge Streetsweeper with a shoulder stock and 18” barrel, versus getting shot with a 12 gauge Saiga with a shoulder stock and 18” barrel equipped with a 20-round drum magazine? The legal difference is that the former is a Destructive Device and the latter is a Title I shotgun, but there is no practical or functional difference between the two.

Also related to this kind of “at a distance issue” is the issue of certain “uppers” that are regarded by ATF as machine guns, and others that have not. In a recent federal court case in Atlanta (United States of America vs. One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS “7.62X54R Caliber Conversion System” Machine Gun, Serial No. V1,” an “upper” was ruled to be a machine gun, in part, because ATF technicians could get it to fire full auto by equipping it with plastic ties, chains and various other devices. It didn’t matter that videotaped testing of several other devices that ATF doesn’t even classify as “firearms” can, by being equipped with the same plastic ties, chains and various other devices, demonstrated that these other devices could also be made to fire full auto; and that these “uppers” are not subject to the NFA. This videotaped testing was entered into evidence in the case. In the interest of full disclosure, (1) I don’t own any “uppers”; (2) I am not and never have been involved in any of the foregoing legal proceedings; (3) I have no dog in this fight, and (4) when it comes to understanding the mysteries of “uppers,” I’m as dumb as a box of rocks. I’m concerned about the “message” the case sends to ordinary people.

Viewed from a distance, I figure that if a person was to buy an “upper” from an FFL, that the conditions of the sale would conform to federal, state, and local law. Viewed from a distance, I can’t help but feel unease at what appears to be ATF’s nonuniform application of standards or tests, because ATF could pick out any one of those uppers, turn it into a machine gun, and then prosecute the owner of that “upper,” even if the “upper” was not even previously classified as a “firearm.” There are all sorts of these uppers sold without any controls at gun shows across the United States. Again, I’ve got no dog in this particular fight --- I don’t own any uppers, don’t plan to buy any, and none of this has any impact on me personally. I mention this because there are millions of Elmer Fudds who own millions of “uppers” that ATF can, at will, convert into machine guns, and there are some people who will try and cynically play into those fears.

I don’t believe that ATF has some secret plan to instigate massive social disorder in either of the above instances --- I really don’t. I think the above instances are the result of ATF’s lack of scientific testing standards and, in some instances, an inclination to make inept rulings and pursue enforcement activities directed at individual people rather than the broad issues that affect all firearms being regulated. I also believe that the majority of this trouble has been caused by ATF attorneys, NOT THE ATF FOLKS AND TECHNICIANS WHO WORK AS HARD AND DILIGENTLY AS THEY KNOW HOW, AND IN MY VIEW ARE VICTIMIZED BY ATF ATTORNEYS AS MUCH AS CITIZENS ARE VICTIMIZED BY THE LACK OF NOTICE OF WHAT IS COMING FROM ATF. My impression is that some ATF technicians and other staff have “decisions” already made sprung on them without notice, much as happens to outsiders when ATF decides to “make available” some new ruling in which nobody had any notice or inputs. There is no reason things must be handled that way. As such, I believe these situations have resulted from mismanagement by top ATF executives, whose job it is to keep an eye on the law and policy.

This is a much longer post that I had planned to write, but I am encouraged by the constructive and positive tone of this thread, and believe that honest, plain talk can and will help promote a better understanding of the issues involved.

You seem to have a very firm grasp of the situation...

[Zorro]

Len I wouldn't invest a dime in making this gun. After finally being able to download and read FTB's letter it is, in my humble opinion, a prime example of one that will be "reconsidered". I understand the reasoning behind saying it is not an AOW but I must be missing something as I can't understand the reasoning behind saying it's not an NFA firearm, specifically a DD. If anyone can show me what I'm missing I'd be most appreciative.

You seem to have a very firm grasp of the situation...

[Lone Wolf]

Len I wouldn't invest a dime in making this gun. After finally being able to download and read FTB's letter it is, in my humble opinion, a prime example of one that will be "reconsidered". I understand the reasoning behind saying it is not an AOW but I must be missing something as I can't understand the reasoning behind saying it's not an NFA firearm, specifically a DD. If anyone can show me what I'm missing I'd be most appreciative.

[bythebook]

Content Deleted

[Doc Holiday]

Do not apoligize for a little humor. Our agency is missing a good dose of common sense and humor. Although these are serious issues, good prudent policy making can work thru it. I agree with both sides, so why arent both sides sitting down to make good sound rulings that protect the law abiding citizens right to have firearms and shit hammers the badguys. Im just sayin!!!!! Oh thats right, Chief counsel thinks we are the gun nazis.

[Zorro]

There is nothing new here, just that every few years another generation "discovers" the "new law". The subguns crew caught on about 2.5-3 yrs ago but the flurry went away after a few posts. The law reads the same as it has (best of my knowledge for 42 years and 1 month as of today) and the info has been published in multiple newsletters over the years that "pg shotguns" are not shotguns. Even if it was not published, a literal reading of the definitions tells the same tale. Same with a semi Maxim, Vickers, 1919, etc. They can have less than 16 inch barrels and not be under the purview of the NFA because they are neither rifles nor weapons made from rifles. While 2 charges on a bad actor beats 1, *most* true blue "bad guys" are eligible for a 922(g) charge or any number of other forays into misadventure, so walking away unscathed is not that likely. As for lawsuits, has there ever been a successful one against any NY, NJ, NJ, CA LE for locking up law abiding people in violation of the FOPA 24 years after passage - more than enough time and dismissed cases that a copper should know better and was probably acting maliciously or their agency was neglectful in training them? If you feel there is a genuine public safety issue here, work with your reps or senators for tighter gun laws. I will disagree with you on it, as I hold the opinion that many gun laws place more restraint on the law abiding than the criminal and by default I suspect that's what you will get in return for your efforts and may suffer buyer's remorse - but by all means speak your piece. Careful you don't start a Fudd uprising.

[Historic Arms LLC]

Lone Wolf & Doc,

The letter is from Firearms Technology Branch, [and is the third on this subject from FTB to my company]. It classified a sample firearm that I sent them. A 12 ga. Mossberg 500c that was just over 26 inches long and had a barrel length of 16 5/8 inches [nearly 1 1/2 inches shorter than 18 inches] . I submitted the firearm based on the ATF FFL Newletter that was published in November of 2009. The newsletter declared that "pistol gripped pump shotguns" were not shotguns (since they are not designed to be fired from the shoulder) and could only be sold to buyers 21 years or older.

My submission to FTB was; since it [the sample] was not a shotgun, then the 18 barrel minimum can't apply to it. FTB agreed and stated it had to be greater than 26 inches long so as to not be "concealable on the person". Hence my note on the thread of an "approved" short barrel NON-shotgun.

I have had products that FTB had "approved" [non firearm accessory] and then nearly a year later "reconsidered" [unregistered machinegun] spontaneously. I have received threatening letters from ATF Chief Counsels Office demanding customers lists or ATF would "Come compel me". There is no humor in that. My company lost nearly $500K in that mess....

My concern is that FTB says it's OK to have a Mossberg 500c that has a barrel less than 18". I figure that is going to make street agents life hell when the first real bad guy [or his lawyer more likely] figures out that ATF said it's ok.

There is also a possible scenario that if I began production, some street agent unaware that ATF says it's ok either gets into an altercation or arrests a possessor of one of these NON shotguns and then later gets sued by the owner. Reading how the Chief Counsels Office treat you street agents, you might get hung out to dry...

I just wanted the forums opinion about this and wanted to raise awareness of the situation that could impact street agents [and IOI's for that matter].

I don't think my door's would be kicked down, and forgive me for my poor attempt at humor in my original post. It was uncalled for and in bad taste. [I still open my doors to any of you for a drop by visit]

I am very grateful that this forum exists and allows an FFL like myself to be able to discuss things directly with ATF employees and agents.


Len

[Lone Wolf]

Len, If the letter says that your proposed firearm is outside the purview of the NFA Branch then it means that it is not an NFA firearm and you need to contact the Firearms Tech Branch for a classification and written ruling. Contact your local ATF Office and ask to speak to an Industry Operations Investigator, they handle the regulations and can provide you with another regulations book. I couldn't download your link so I can only try to answer your questions that you posted; Just because a shotgun's bore is more than 1/2 " does not automatically classify it as a DD. Striker 12 / streetsweepers were classified as DD's because a ruling was requested from ATF and ATF ruled that the the overall description does not meet the sporting purposes test; Knox Inds makes a conversion kit for a pump that includes a drum mag. that's legal; The only difference between a shotgun with a shoulder stock and one with only a pistol grip is you have to be 21 years old to purchase the one with only the pistol grip and a resident of the state where you purchase it, because of the way the federal law was written. As long as pistol grip only shotguns have barrels 18" or longer and are 26" in overall length they are not NFA firearms. And, when ATF classified striker 12 / streetsweepers as DD's everyone who owned one was allowed a grace period to register them without getting their door kicked in.

[Doc Holiday]

First of all, it is my experience that we as ATF Agents don't kick down doors based on ambiguous firearms technicalities. If I understand your posting, you are saying pistol grip shotguns are NOT shotguns as defined in the GCA? I am not personally aware of such a ruling. Wouldn't that make all pistol grip shotguns NFA firearms and require across the board registration? That would not make sense. Doesn't sound like the policy makers gave this much thought.If they are NOT shotguns, then are they exempt from barrel length or overall length restrictions? Can people under 21 purchase a pistol grip shotgun? I highly suggest you contact the Chief of FTB or Chief counsels office for clarification.That's what they get paid for. Put your request in writing.

[Historic Arms LLC]

Making my living from the FFL side of things I have found that compliance can be downright hard to do. Not that I don't want to be compliant, quite the opposite, I strive to be voluntarily compliant with United States Code (USC) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

My question that I have for the Special Agents on the board is how would you handle the situation if you came across a firearm that is described in the ATF classification letter here? My link

I am quite hesitant to build or sell any of these even though it clearly states the firearm would be outside the purview of the NFA. My reasons are that the definition of a destructive device means a firearm by any name that has a bore diameter greater than 1/2 inch is a destructive device, only a shotgun of sporting purposes is exempt. I know that the "or shotgun shell" did not prevent the Streetsweeper or Stryker 12 shotguns from being declared DD's in the mid 90's by ATF.

The problem really got worse when it was pointed out to me that when the ATF Newsletter November of 09 reminded FFL's that a factory "pistol gripped pump shotgun" was not a shotgun. It was discussed here on the board to the great bleeding of many eyes.

If it's not a shotgun, how is it exempt under the NFA destructive device definition?

Does this mean that every owner of one of these firearm is in possession of an "unregistered" destructive device?

Does this mean that Remington, Mossberg, and Winchester have being unlawfully making and transferring unregistered destructive devices? [since 1968 GCA gave the destructive device definition]

Help me out here, I'm just trying to make sense of this and I want to conduct myself in a lawful manner. Don't get me wrong, I would enjoy a stop by visit by anyone from this board, just not one during the execution of a search warrant should the ATF change it's mind and reconsider the above classification.

What is the point of view of the "Street Agents", Do I begin production or not?

More importantly for your perspective, How will this effect your job at putting the bad guys behind bars? I assume that the very existence of this letter will impact court cases on some level sooner or later.

Len Savage