Help with FOIA Results

[Atllaw]

As I posted before, I purchased a 1928 Savage last year. No military marks and has the New York address. I sent in a FOIA request just 3 months ago and received the results today. Anyone help in gleaning information off it is appreciated since all I can tell is that it was first registered in Louisville KY in October 1940. They are great at redaction now. Can anyone tell if it was and individual or PD?

 

Many thanks

Will

Edited December 17, 2019 by Atllaw

[Waffen Und Bier]

Government and PD's are tax exempt. None of their info should be redacted. I can't wait for judgment day. Edited December 17, 2019 by Waffen Und Bier

[Waffen Und Bier]

Damn double posting thingy. Could be worse, though...could be three times Edited December 17, 2019 by Waffen Und Bier

[Atllaw]

Yes, mine posted 3 times!

 

So this would have been purchased bulky an individual? Noticed the line requiring a title if not an individual was not filled in. Like how the form has a preprinted 1934 date. Guess they printed a lot more than they needed to start.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Atllaw

[TD.]

Atllaw,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1 dated October 15, 1940 and filed at the IRS on October 17, 1940 reveals Thompson submachine gun S-31456 was sold commercially by Auto-Ordnance Corporation in the USA. I would guess the first owner was a law enforcement organization because there is no tax applicable to a private individual sale or transfer involved. More importantly, this redacted IRS Form 1 established your early Savage Thompson, S-31456, is a Savage Commercial Thompson. Congratulations! Savage Thompson guns manufactured for Auto-Ordnance Corporation that were sold for military service, domestic or foreign, were not registered with the IRS. Only those Thompsons sold or transferred commercially in the United States were required to be registered as per the National Firearms Art of 1934.

 

Your real search now begins. You know who you purchased S-31456 from. You need to find out where they obtained S-31456 and see if they have the unredacted paperwork from that sale (they do). With any luck, you may be able to contact that previous owner and trace S-31456 back to the original owner on October 15, 1940.

 

The Form 1 for S-31456 is an August 1934 IRS form. There is a later IRS Form 1, dated December 1940.

 

Thank you for sharing!

 

Let me know if you need any assistance.

Edited December 17, 2019 by TD.

[Atllaw]

Thanks much Tom!. Great news. I will try to trace it back. The hunt begins.

[fifthmdec]

The original registrar, may have been a representative of a law enforcement agency.

It was not uncommon for the Chief of Police or CLEO to register the weapon on an early Form 1.

 

Nor was it uncommon for the CLEO to use their residence as the place that the firearm is currently located at that time.

 

We have an unredacted Form 1 from 1934, showing the registrar as the Police Chief of San Francisco.

With the Colt 1921 in his possession at his residence. Eventually, it made it into the inventory of the SFPD.

 

As stated above, most likely it was purchased from a representative of the manufacturer.

 

It is common for the incorrect boxes to be checked during transfers.

 

Since, these are Internal Revenue forms, tax payer information is private and normally redacted. Whether any tax was actually paid.

 

The reasons are included in your FOIA packet. Also, if you are not satisfied, you may appeal. You have 90 days from the date listed on the letter.

 

Interestingly, the other box is checked on the Form 5. Since it is redacted, the place or reason is obscured.

 

It is possible, that the incorrect box was checked. If it was in the inventory of a LE agency. That box was not checked.

 

May have been part of an estate, the CLEO, may have kept the Thompson after he retired. Especially, if it was registered in his name.

 

The scenarios are many and it is not uncommon to see unusual things in the transfer of an NFA weapon.

 

Sometimes, there are letters that accompany transfers, that indicate why the transfer is a tax exempt one that may not fit snuggly in one of the check boxes.

 

You might receive more information from your original FOIA from the Disclosure Office, that may or may not help.

 

This happened to us a few years ago. It did clarify some things.

 

Appears that it transferred out to an FFL/SOT in 1983.

 

Either way, the results are always interesting...

[darrylta]

I would appeal to get the info on the original purchaser.

It does work, I appealed three times and finally got that info

on my Colt Monitor.

Darryl

[Atllaw]

I will try the appeal route for more info.

[Bridgeport28A1]

I would appeal to get the info on the original purchaser.

It does work, I appealed three times and finally got that info

on my Colt Monitor.

Darryl

 

Are you able to expand on how appealing your FOIA three times changes the application of Federal Code (3) (26 USC 6103) and (6) (26 USC 6103)?

Edited December 17, 2019 by Bridgeport28A1

[darrylta]

I must have convinced the deciders that your afore mentioned codes were not revelant due to the time frame regarding the

people these codes were trying to protect. I only asked for the original owner government entinity, not any specific name or names.

 

It's common knowledge these guns went to Sheriff or Police departments.

If you dissect the codes, the people that it's protecting have long ago passed.

This is from memory, years ago.

 

In my instance the Washoe County Sheriff had purchased the Monitor in early 1935.

The last iteration only revealed the Washoe County Sheriff Jailhouse as it's residence.

I further contacted the Sheriff's historian and received a thank you and period photos of the gun.

Well worth the time.

Darryl

Edited December 17, 2019 by darrylta

[Atllaw]

I think I will appeal just see if I can get a little more information. Even little things like whether the original owner was a individual or what title they put would be helpful. Also, the nature of the exemption on the second transfer.

Any idea if the NFA has a minimum age to begin with to own a NFA item? Could help since that original person would need to be at least 98 or 101.

 

Funny because I submitted the request on October 15 - 79 years to the day from the date of the form 1.

[darrylta]

The appeal letters just boiled down to pleading common sense and lots of begging.

A letter will have to accompany the appeal notices.

Darryl :-)

[Bartlow]

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.

[TD.]

Bartlow,

I don't think ATF handles the Disclosure Appeals. I believe the Appeals go to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and are assigned to a DOJ attorney, not an ATF attorney (which is a part of the DOJ - go figure). I would be very much surprised if you do not receive some type of correspondence or ruling in the future. I am thinking there was an appellate time frame they operated under. If your argument has great merit, my guess is they will want to settle with your client to make this appeal go away. To that end, I am wondering if you have any case law that firmly establishes your position. If the grounds of your appeal are contested by DOJ, I would guess any written response will cite applicable case law in support of their position. Then it would be your turn to reply before an official decision is made regarding the appeal. If unsuccessful, your client may have another administrative appeal route or can file a suit in District Court. Of note, you are relying on the DOJ attorney to read the unredacted IRS or ATF form in questions and determine if a State or its subdivisions, or government (agency) is listed (and redacted) on the form. Even if successful, I would guess the DOJ and ATF would narrowly construe any future disclosures.

 

Please keep us informed of the progress. Most owners are only interested in the original owner or transferee of their NFA weapon.

[Bartlow]

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

Edited December 20, 2019 by Bartlow

[TD.]

James,

I figured you took a look at any applicable case law. I agree, DOJ does have the upper hand. However, I am not so sure a DOJ attorney would fight hard just to protect the name of a city, county or law enforcement organization if your legal argument is sound. And I think it may be!

 

Regarding the ATF internal opinion you found from circa 1980, this may be an action by Roger Cox to obtain the names of all the original purchasers of the Colt Thompson submachine guns. I heard years ago that Cox obtained a signed release from Cary Maquire, the President of Components Corporation of America, successors to the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation, and filed the release with ATF. What information Cox received or what transpired next is unknown (to me). Given Cox's now classic book was published in 1982, I would assume Cox was looking for information for his book and possible business leads.

 

I do know Cox is a retired attorney and living in Pennsylvania. He was a member of the Bar in Massachusetts so his contact information may be readily available. Perhaps he could shed light on this early litigation if you deem it pertinent to the matter at hand.

 

Please keep us informed. All good stuff!!!

[Tman]

As of my retirement, ATF had a shop in HQ that handled all FOIA requests.

[johnsonlmg41]

Maybe they redact more because DOJ/ATF doesn't have authorization to even do the transfers or collect the tax? That is solely Treasury's role, so them releasing any info is info they aren't supposed to have in the first place, much less share? One day that's going to be an interesting case. And of course if treasury was still in charge would we be still have transfers taking 10+ months with no end in sight?

[Waffen Und Bier]

I would argue further that a name or signature placed on a government document on behalf of a government entity (especially when no tax has been paid) is also a matter of public record.

[Motorcar]

I sent in a FOIA request just 3 months ago and received the results today.

 

Atllaw, Did you file your request on paper or do an electronic form? Seems like 3 months is a very good turnaround compared to some of the other horror stories shared here.

[Atllaw]

Emailed the request and letter. I filed two the same day - one on the Thompson and one on a 1918 bar. Actually the Thompson came back in just two months - they were both filed October 15. Still waiting on the BAR. I was shocked it came back so quick.

[Atllaw]

FYI, I just received my second FOIA back on my BAR (both were submitted at the same time in October)