Jump to content

ATF Tricks


Recommended Posts

Instead if the stamp I was hoping to see, I received a correction letter on my Auto Ordnance 1928A1. The Form 4 to the out of state seller had no barrel or overall lengths. My dealer's Form 4 also was blank. Because I am stupid, I filled the blanks with 12" and 33.5" respectively. A week or so ago the ATF asked my dealer for a picture of the gun with a ruler to show the lengths. He sent one. So far so good, right? Wrong.

 

The letter stated that the barrel length appeared to the examiner from the picture to be 15" and the picture was returned with a circle around the magazine well. Apparently, the barrel extends all the way charging handle. A brisk telephone discussion with someone at ATF left my dealer frustrated and being resigned to the fact that the examiner would approve the application if it said 15". But that wasn't all.

 

As one would expect with a WWII 1928A1, my serial number has an AO prefix, at least for anyone who doesn't work for the ATF. In spite of the fact that the two previous Form 4s list my serial number as AO-114xxx, the ATF has now decided that it is A0114xxx. Yep, I had to "correct" that too.

 

Perhaps after I get my stamp I'll try and set the record straight.

Edited by DZelenka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just repeat exactly what was on the previous form, no matter how semi-incorrect it is, and usually everything is approved.

Don't waste your time correcting the form.

A lot of guys are desperate to try to correct the form, I'm telling you for true it's a flat waste of time.

I sent a letter with a caliber correction to ATF, two years later I got a generic form letter back saying, "Thanks for your interest in the ATF, we are happy to hear from you."

The people at ATF processing these records are not gun collectors and they do not know anything about guns, nor do they care.

 

They won't believe anything unless they can see a picture of it.

All they want is to keep someone from illegally morphing a MAC10 registration into a M16 registration.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to bash ATF I can understand all the frustration. My tale of bureaucratic ineptitude happened last month. I sent a application to make and register a firearm (M1 parts kit on Bob Bowers receiver semi auto). App was mailed late July and I got a reject letter right after xmas. REASON....On line 4 subsection h. I listed the additional markings which included Idaho. Spelled Idaho....The junior college valedictorian that rejected the app said "you cannot abbreviate the state"???????? I remailed the application with a letter saying that is how I was taught to spell Idaho and sure enough i got my stamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't really blame them for being very strict about this stuff.

 

If you want to know the history why read this case: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/01/09/13-10337.pdf

 

FACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK G ROUND

 

Rodman and five other d defendants were indicted for conspiracy to de f raud an ag ency of the United States, in violat i o n o f 18 U.S.C. § 371. Specifically , the defendants were charg ed with conspiracy to transfer machine g uns unlawfully by making f alse entries on forms submitted to the B ureau o f Alcohol, T o b a cco, F irearms, and Ex plosives U N I T E D S T A T E S V . R O D M A N 5 (ATF ). The National F irearms Act (NF A) provides that it is unlawful for a private citiz e n to transfer o r p o ssess an unreg istered machin e gun. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812, 5822. Machine g uns must be reg istered with the National F irearms Reg istration and Transfer Record, which is maintained b y the National F irearms Act B ranch (NF A B ranch) of the ATF . I n ord er to transfer a machine g un between federal f irearms licensees, an ATF F orm 3, sig ned under penalty of perjury , must be completed and filed w it h the ATF . I n o rder to transfer a machine g un to a member of the g eneral public, an ATF F orm 4, sig ned under pe n alty of perjury , must be completed and filed with the AT F . A mong other data, these forms require a d escription of the f i r e a rm being transferred, including the serial number, the ty pe of firea r m, the caliber, the model, the leng th of the barrel, a n d t h e overall leng th o f the firearm. Private citiz ens, whether federal firearms licensees o r members of the g eneral public, who are not acting under the authority o f the United States or a st a t e , may transfer o r possess only machine g uns that were reg istered on or before May 16, 1986. 1 8 U . S.C. §§ 9 2 2(o)(2)(A)–(B ). I n this opinion, we refer to machine g uns reg istered on or before May 16, 1 986 as “pre-ban mac h i n e g uns,” and to machine g uns reg istered a f t e r May 16, 1 986 as “post-ban machine g uns.” I n order to c ircumvent the r es t r i c t i o n s described, Rodman, along with his codefendants I dan Greenberg , G eor ge Clark, Hal Goldstein, J ames A rnberg er, and L orren Kalish , all o f whom were federal firearms licensees, e n tered into a conspiracy to build, p ossess, and sell p ost-ban machine g uns that used serial numbers cut from pre-ban machine g uns. Clark, who was a lso licensed to manufacture firearms, would U N I T E D S T A T E S V . R O D M A N 6 cut the serial n umber from an inex pensive reg istered pre-ban machine g un, and discard the remaining parts o f t he g un. Clark would then u se new parts, often supplied by his codefendants, to const ruct a n ew machine g un, and would w e ld the serial number of the pre-ban machine g u n ont o t h e new, post-ban machine g un. The defendants w ould then sell the new, post-ban machine g uns as pre-ban machine g uns, in some cases for a sig nificant profit, without telling the buy ers of those g uns the method by whi c h the machine g uns h ad been made, or that the machine g uns offered to the buy ers were actually post-ban machine g uns. T h e defendants reg istered and transferred these “new” machine g uns among st themselves a n d others by filling out either a F orm 3 or a F orm 4 using the serial number, manufacturer, and model of the p r e-ban machine g uns. These transfer f orms were f raudulent. The forms liste d t h e model and manufacture of the pre-ban machine g un even thoug h the machine g u n actually sold was a new g un, a different model than the pre-ban g un, a nd had been manu f a c t u r e d by Clark. A d ditionally , the forms did not mention that the ser i al n u mber on the g un being sold had been cut from a p r e - b a n machine g un and affix ed onto the new p ost-ban machine g un. The ATF approved these transfers because none of the defendants disclosed that they were selling post-ban machine g uns using pre-ban mac h i n e g un information, and the ATF relied on the false representations made in the transfer forms. Consistent with the conspiracy , Rodman purchased Clark’s m a c h i n e g uns manufactured post-ban but affix ed with pre-ban serial n umbers. Rodman knew the method by which Clark manufactured the machine g uns, but claimed d ur ing trial that Clark told him this method was lawful. Clark filed transfer papers with the ATF to transfer 13 machine g uns to Rodman between 2000 and 2008. These new machine g uns were transferred to Rodman using the serial number and other information, such as the model name and manufacturer, from the pre-ban machine g un s . R o dman sold and filed transfer papers w ith the ATF for sev e n o f the Clark-made machine g uns, ag a in using pre-ban information to sell and tr a n sfer post-ban g uns. Rodman moved f or a c q u ittal, and to dismiss the charg e for conspira cy t o defraud the g overnment under 18 U .S.C. § 371. T he district court denied both motions. Rodman also unsuccessfully requested a jury instruction for entrapment b y estoppel based on Clark’s alleg ed statements that his method of manuf a c t u ring machine g u ns w as lawful, and a jury instruction r eg arding a buy er-sell er relationship b etween Rodman and Clark

Edited by philasteen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've learned my lesson. The Form 4 from the out of state seller was so deficient in information I assumed that I would run into an issue if I didn't fill it in. Never again. The only place I added information that didn't cause an issue was the manufacturer. The earlier form just said Auto Ordnance, no city or state. I added Bridgeport, Connecticut. Thankfully the examiner was only gun illiterate and not geographically illiterate also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost count of the 'error' letters received needing correction on forms in the last few years. ATF/NFA's recently initiated effort is to have all submitted forms have the same info as the original registration recorded in the NFRTR. There are four 'vetters" who receive the submitted form when it gets to ATF/NFA in WV and they review the forms and compare to the NFRTR. All other information concerning FFLs, status of transferor and of transferee, depending on form, completeness and accuracy of everything submitted, etc, etc. If the serial number on your weapon is different than the serial of record, you will be required to submit the forms with the serial of record. ATF advises that the new registrant can and a letter correcting the NFRTR with the correct serial number. I've chatted with Ted Clutter at least twice about making the change in an error letter situation and he just shrugs and says that is not the policy. Duh!

Premises address on FFL and SOT has to be identical which I am now dealing with. One lists also the route number of the street address after the street number and the other doesn't so my transfers are not held up until this gets changed and both forms have identical addresses.

Never ends…...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea Bob, I had one held up for having the wrong street name. I put Morgan Meadows Ave. instead of Morgan Meadow Ave. for the transferee address. The funny thing is that I had already received two approvals with the same mistake from the same transferee. I had bought so many things from the dealer I have a pre filled form on my computer unfortunately with the typo in the address. It has since been corrected but there are two more items awaiting approval with that typo. I hope if they slip through.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFA Branch does have its issues but often times the fault is not on their end. I have one customer that is approaching two years in correcting a serial number but this cannot be blamed on ATF. The firearm in question is a MP40 that was originally registered using the serial number on the lower rather than the tube, a common mistake I have been told by those in the know. Informed the customer I would not sell it for him until he contacted NFA Branch to have the F4 corrected. Simple enough, I wrote a letter for him to sign and send to ATF requesting the change and provided photos for him to send with it. Year goes by and I ask him if he has heard any thing, answer is no so I suggest he call them. I run into him about six months later and ask him if he has heard from NFA Branch, Nope, he says, they haven't even bothered to return my phone call. When he called he got their voice mail leaving a message with only his name and a request they return his call. Didn't bother to leave his number because he "assumed" they had caller ID. Yep, no doubt he isn't the sharpest pencil in the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...