Bartlow

ATF does not sell forfeited guns. It will either be kept by them for law enforcement use (as a reference gun, typically), or more likely, given they probably own several examples of the 1921 Thompson machine gun, destroyed. As to why it was seized, hard to say.

In perusing the list of items ATF has proposed to forfeit after seizing is the Colt Thompson No. 8219, from a FFL in California. They propose to seize two other machine guns (both are listed as SIG SG551) from the same dealer also. 21-ATF-027512: Colt 1921 Thompson Machine Gun CAL:45 SN:8219, valued at $5,000.00, seized by the ATF on July 28, 2021 from Dennis Le Vine in Manhattan Beach, CA for forfeiture pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 5872. https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/ATF/OfficialNotification.pdf

That would need to be registered with ATF to be legally possessed. If it doesn't have a serial number it was probably not ever registered. If it was registered in the 1968 Amnesty it probably would have been assigned a serial number that started with the letters IRS. If it was registered via a form 1 before then the person registering it could have selected the number to mark on it. So check the tube for markings. When it was made and sold (before the NFA law existed) they were sold via mail order or as an over the counter accessory. They did not have a serial number and none was required. But the NFA required everything registered have a number. If it has no number and you find no registration paperwork in the owner's stuff it is very probable it was not registered. Even if the silencer is not registered and thus contraband, the tube and any other packaging is not illegal and is collectible. Pretending you made it, and trying to register it now via a current Form 1, it not legal and in my opinion is a bad idea. James

I feel compelled to put in my two cents even though others have offered good input. Especially given the prices of machine guns, there is a lot of trust in others required to buy machine guns. The gun will be registered to other parties as the gun gets to you, the final/actual buyer. Those people have the ability to take advantage of their temporary possession of the gun. It doesn't happen a lot, but it can, and it does happen once in a while. Pick your local dealer carefully. Buy from a trustworthy source. Ideally you wouldn't have to pay for the gun until ATF had approved the transfer, so you know the gun exists and is not going to be transferred to anyone else after you paid. But the machine gun market with a very limited supply and plenty of demand lets sellers dictate the terms, so payment up front on trust is the norm. As others noted, ATF registration is not about ownership, it is about legal possession. Who "owns" it is a function of who paid for it and who has the right to control its destiny. Often the legal owner and possessor are the same, but when an NFA gun is moving to a new owner they are not. Contracts can help here. Being confident that the parties you are doing business with are trustworthy also goes a long way. One final suggestion. If you are thinking you like or are going to buy more machine guns that are also considered curios or relics (like an Ingram M6) you can eliminate having to use a local dealer buy getting a curio/relic FFL. The holder of a c&r ffl can get the gun direct from an out of state seller, like the auction house you bought the gun from. You still have to do a transfer form, still have to pay the transfer tax (unless the gun is deactivated) but you eliminate having to use a local dealer and trust that he or she is honest and will take care of your gun while they have it.

In the year 1947, 26 USC 2721 allowed tax free transfer of NFA firearms to "(1) to the United States Government, any State, Territory, or possession of the United States, or to any political subdivision thereof, or to the District of Columbia; (2) to any peace officer or any Federal officer designated by regulations of the Commissioner; (3) to the transfer of any firearm which is unserviceable and which is transferred as a curiosity or ornament." https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/uscode/uscode1940-00202/uscode1940-002026025/uscode1940-002026025.pdf So the recipient was probably a government agency, although as noted, police officers could receive the guns tax exempt. The transferor was probably a dealer or H&R itself. The title under the signature is "Secretary-Treasurer." That is a common office in a corporation. I don't see how that could refer to someone authorized to dispose of firearms for the US Military. My guess would be it was bought by an agency from the manufacturer. I would appeal some of the redactions from your FOIA, if I was in your position. Government agencies do not have protection from disclosure of tax returns under 26 USC 6103, because they are not "taxpayers." Further, the name of the manufacturer is not, in my opinion, return information protected from disclosure. So while the transferor on your form is probably entitled to protection from disclosure (since my guess is that it is H&R) the transferee does not (since it is probably a government agency). Further, deleting the name of the manufacturer (line 6) is in my opinion an error. That is not the type of return information that is typically deleted from forms released under FOIA, at least in my experience. ATF does not, to my knowledge, agree that government agencies are not protected by 26 USC 6103. But I think the law is clear, and I am, off and on, engaged in a quixotic fight with them over the issue. I wrote an appeal letter which is in another of my posts which you can feel free to rip off if you want to assist in trying to "stick it to the man." One other fun fact to note from this form. A transferor did not always have to beg for permission before transferring the firearm back then, the way the law works now. Instead the transferor sent it to the transferee, and then reported the transfer after the fact to the Feds. The form is dated July 1947, and says they shipped the gun to the recipient the month before that. If you want to read the 1945 version of the NFA law: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/uscode/uscode1940-00202/uscode1940-002026025/uscode1940-002026025.pdf

When this gun was built the NFA had not been enacted. All of these original Remington 17 guns were registered by the owner, not by Remington. The owner registered them according to what they knew, and the gun's configuration at the time. If this gun has always had the pistol grip it could have been registered as an AOW. But maybe the owner didn't know that, or wanted to be able to use it with a shoulder stock also. I have read that at least some of the Remington 17 pistol gripped guns were supplied with a shoulder stock also. Probably you got whatever you wanted, if you ordered it with both stocks that's what you got. If you ordered it with just a pistol grip or just a shoulder stock you got that. At the time these were sold by Remington they were just guns. There was no NFA, no AOW or short barreled shotguns. Guns were guns. A few states may have had regulations, but nothing at the federal level. To me that is part of what is neat about the pre-1934 guns that are now NFA firearms. Relics from an era before gun control. If someone wanted to make a gun configured just like the one in the ad in the first message, as a new production gun, so long as the overall length was at least 26" it could be sold like the Mossberg Shockwave guns or the Remington TAC 13 guns, as a "firearm" that is not subject to the NFA in that exact configuration. But of course the Remington 17 ended production in or before 1934. New made Remington 17 guns are not happening.

There was a discussion here a while ago about the factory Remington model 17 with a pistol grip and 15 barrel. Some of the examples had GRPD crudely stamped on them. Collectors Firearms in Houston has one advertised. I cant believe it will bring $2950. https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/remington-17-sbs-20-gauge-s11198/

Yes the appeal was directed to DOJ. I rummaged but did not find any case law. DOJ, being the defendant in any such case has an advantage in being able to know whether this issue has been litigated and if so what the end result was, whether it resulted in a written or published decision, or not. All I found was an ATF internal opinion from 1980 or so about releasing the original Auto Ordnance registrations and transfer requests to the successor company to the original Auto Ordnance Co. The opinion notes that only a small handful of the Auto Ordnance transfers were to individuals, the balance were to government entities which, the opinion notes, are probably not covered by section 6103. I didn't cite to that opinion in my appeal because I didn't think it was binding or even necessarily persuasive on the questions here. Government entities don't have to file too many tax returns, and are excluded from most federal tax schemes altogether. Maybe someone could ask for Pittman-Robertson excise tax refund requests from government entities and run into this issue. Or fuel tax refund requests. But for the most part government entities are completely exempt from filing as well as tax requirements. They can buy vehicle fuel and items covered by Pittman-Robertson without ever paying the tax, if they do the transaction correctly from the start. So outside of the NFA issue I am not sure how it would come up, to require a lawsuit and a court decision. James Bardwell

SKM_C55819121909110.pdfAn appeal would be based on the fact that 26 USC 6103 does not apply to non-taxpayers and to parties that do not fit the definition under the Internal Revenue Code of "persons." Attached is a letter I wrote (for someone else, I am not the person who signed the letter) for an appeal. As you might expect ATF has not responded, and I would not be surprised if they do not respond, and put it on me (or my client) to sue. But maybe the more persons who repeatedly ask ATF to stop citing 26 USC 6103 as a basis to deny a FOIA where the information relates to a government entity (which is neither a person nor a taxpayer under the NFA, and therefore has no privacy right under section 6103) the more likely ATF will be to finally at least try to obey the law on this point.

SKM_C55819121909111.pdfSo I did a FOIA request and for the first two transfers/entries I got the attached, essentially solid black, "documents" back from ATF. The information on the other two transfers the gun had been through was information I already had. Not very helpful. I am pretty sure the original owner, and original registrant of these guns was a government entity. So I did an appeal. It is pretty clear, I think, that 26 USC 6103 does not apply to government entities. They are not taxpayers, they never owe any tax, and so whether these forms are return information or not, they aren't entitled to the privacy protections of section 6103. I think that sometimes other parts of FOIA might prevent disclosure of some NFA documents filed by government entities (such as information on guns the entity currently has), but I see no exemption for information on a gun the agency no longer has, and disposed of over 20 years ago. So I did an appeal, which is also attached. Based on past experience, ATF probably won't reply, but maybe they will.They haven't responded yet. SKM_C55819121909110.pdf

He apparently died October 30, but the New York Times ran his obituary yesterday. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/obituaries/william-hughes-congressman-and-ambassador-dies-at-87.html

The Amnesty form is dated June 1969, well after the Amnesty. ATTD let people who were outside of the USA on government orders submit forms late. Typically these were U.S. diplomats, soldiers and intelligence people. So my guess would be that the owner was a "special" government employee of some sort.

I just got a Remington Model 17, registered as a factory made short shotgun. It is a factory police special gun. It was apparently one of 13 obtained from a police agency in the early 1990's. The batch included serial numbers 56309, 62337, 67009, 67013, 67033, 67379, 67386, 67517, 67565, 67574, 67666, 67781 and 67904. I was wondering if anyone had one of these guns, and knew where it came from? I realize I can do a FOIA request, but maybe someone has some legwork done already. James