What impact will the Fix NICS bill have on NICS appeals?

I was recently debating with a gun control advocate about the increased burden that is imposed on law-abiding gun owners when we add more and more records to the NICS system.  I was specifically discussing the prevalence of erroneous matches.

Her response to this was to dismiss it out of hand as not a problem since “there is an appeal process that they can use to correct those mistakes.”

If you are familiar with the NICS appeal process and its recent history, you will understand why I groaned at that statement.  As of today (May 4, 2018), the following screenshot shows where the FBI is in processing their backlog of NICS appeals.

Let me do the math for you.  They are processing appeals received two years and  four month ago!  This is due in large part to the fact that the FBI, during the Obama Administration, completely stopped processing NICS appeals.

To her credit, the gun control advocate admitted that this is not satisfactory due process and expressed shock at this state of affairs.

That brings us to the Fix NICS Bill which was passed as part of the  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018.  This bill amends the ‘Correction of erroneous system information’ provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, codified at 34 U.S. Code § 40901(g) by adding the following at the end:

For purposes of the preceding sentence, not later than 60 days after the date on which the Attorney General receives such information, the Attorney General shall determine whether or not the prospective transferee is the subject of an erroneous record and remove any records that are determined to be erroneous. In  addition to any funds made available under subsection (k), the Attorney General may use such sums as are necessary and otherwise available for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to comply with this subsection.

This seemingly imposes a hard limit of 60 days to reply to NICS appeals.  However, I am less than hopeful.  There are two reasons for my scepticism:

  1.  There are no penalties or requirements imposed on the 61’st day.  Without that, the deadline has little meaning.  This is backed up by reason number 2.
  2. The text of the existing law (which is two years and 4 months behind) already requires that corrections be made ‘immediately’:

The prospective transferee may submit to the Attorney General information to correct, clarify, or supplement records of the system with respect to the prospective transferee. After receipt of such information, the Attorney General shall immediately consider the information, investigate the matter further, and correct all erroneous Federal records relating to the prospective transferee and give notice of the error to any Federal department or agency or any State that was the source of such erroneous records.

There does appear to be funding for increased staffing in the Fix NICS bill which might provide an incentive to reduce the backlog and live up to the new requirement.  We will have to watch their progress over the next few months to see if that is the case.

Posted in ATF, Background Checks, BATFE, Due Process, Federal Law, Fix NICS, NICS, Prohibited Persons, Purchasing Firearms | Tagged | Comments Off on What impact will the Fix NICS bill have on NICS appeals?

Do I need an FFL if all I am going to do is manufacture and sell cast bullets?

I received a call from a client last week asking this question. He wanted to start a business manufacturing cast bullets which he would then sell online and at flea markets. He was hoping that, because he was only dealing with bullets, he could avoid some or all of the regulatory burden imposed upon a completed ammunition manufacturer.

Specifically:

  • He had no intention of manufacturing any ammunition components other than cast bullets;
  • He had no intention of selling any ammunition components other than case bullets; and
  • He would simply have been manufacturing, and then selling, shaped lumps of inert metal.

Looking at it from that perspective, your initial inclination might be to conclude that he did not need to have an FFL.  After all, the active components of completed ammunition are the primers and the powder, neither of which he was going to manufacture or sell.

However, the actual answer is “Yes.  You do need a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to manufacture and sell cast bullets.

Why is this?” you ask.  It is because, despite the fact that the bullet is nothing more than shaped metal, it is an ammunition component.  And federal law requires you to have an FFL if you are going to ‘engage in the business of manufacturing ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution’.  The specific requirement may be found in 18 U.S.C. § 923 which reads (emphasis added):

(a) No person shall engage in the business of … manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being required for each place in which the applicant is to do business, as follows:

(1) If the applicant is a manufacturer—

(C) of ammunition for firearms, other than ammunition for destructive devices or armor piercing ammunition, a fee of $10 per year.

But wait” I hear you cry.  “That says ‘ammunition’, not components.

And you would be correct if that were where the analysis ended.  But, as is often the case in statutory interpretation, one must look to the definition of terms.  In this case, 18 U.S.C. § 921 provides us the definition of ‘ammunition’.

(a) As used in this chapter

(17)

(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.

Taking these two statutes together, it is clear that bullets are included in the definition of ‘ammunition’ for purposes of licensing.  But the bad news for my client didn’t end there.

We also needed to discuss ITAR registration.

ITAR stands for the International Traffic in Arms Regulations which were promulgated to implement the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA).  The relevant section (emphasis added) is as follows:

Any person who engages in the United States in the business of either manufacturing or exporting defense articles or furnishing defense services is required to register with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. For the purpose of this subchapter, engaging in the business of manufacturing or exporting defense articles or furnishing defense services requires only one occasion of manufacturing or exporting a defense article or furnishing a defense service. Manufacturers who do not engage in exporting must nevertheless register.

As for what constitutes ‘defense articles’, 22 CFR 121.1 contains a complete listing under what is known as The United States Munitions List (USML).  The relevant section is contained in Category III of the list in subsection f:

(1) The components, parts, accessories and attachments controlled in this category include, but are not limited to cartridge cases, powder bags (or other propellant charges), bullets, jackets, cores, shells (excluding shotgun shells), projectiles (including canister rounds and submunitions therefor), boosters, firing components therefor, primers, and other detonating devices for the defense articles controlled in this category.

The short answer is that, those licensed to manufacture and sell cast bullets are also required to register for ITAR and pay the registration fee.

So … how bad is this fee?  It’s pretty bad.  If you are not engaged in exporting then you would be considered a ‘Tier 1’ registrant.  Therefore you would only have to pay the lowest possible fee.

A set fee of $2,250 per year is required for new registrants or registrants for whom the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls has not reviewed, adjudicated or issued a response to any applications during a 12-month period ending 90 days prior to expiration of the current registration.

These fees and licensing requirements represent a real barrier to entry into the industry and I look forward to the day when the reach of ITAR is limited to true export items.

Having said all of that, we are still left with the fact that, as it stands today, anyone who is planning to manufacture and sell cast bullets will require both an FFL and yearly ITAR registration.

Posted in Administrative Law, AECA, Ammunition, Ammunition Components, ATF, BATFE, Federal Law, FFL Issues, ITAR, Manufacturing, USML | Comments Off on Do I need an FFL if all I am going to do is manufacture and sell cast bullets?

Avoiding AOW status with a permanently attached muzzle device on a pistol with a vertical foregrip

In my latest article I discussed how permanently attached muzzle devices become part of the barrel length and overall length of a firearm.

With that understanding, a client asked me to revisit my earlier article about vertical foregrips.   As I noted in that article, the ATF’s position is as follows:

a)  Adding a vertical fore-grip to a pistol generally makes it an AOW subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

b)  However, if the overall length (OAL) of the pistol is greater than 26 inches then adding a vertical fore-grip doesn’t result in the pistol becoming an AOW.

Therefore, if you have a pistol with an OAL which is less than 26 inches and you add a permanently attached muzzle device such that the new OAL exceeds 26 inches then a vertical foregrip may be added to the the resulting firearm without making it an AOW.

However, as the ATF made clear in their opinion letter on this issue (see below), concealing this firearm would make it an AOW so caution is advised when transporting or using a firearm thus constructed.

VFG_2011_Page_1

VFG_2011_Page_1

VFG_2011_Page_3

Finally, since a firearm thusly configured is no longer considered a handgun, it would no longer be concealable under a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Posted in AOW, AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Ruling, Barrel Length, BATFE, CHP, Concealed Handgun Permit, Criminal Law, Federal Law, Firearms Technology Branch, Overall Length (OAL), SBR, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns | Comments Off on Avoiding AOW status with a permanently attached muzzle device on a pistol with a vertical foregrip

When does the length of my flash hider or suppressor add to the barrel length or overall length of my firearm?

This is an understandably common question since the length of a firearm’s barrel and the overall length (OAL) of a firearm both factor into the determination of whether said firearm is regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The ATF covers this exact topic in Chapter 2 of the NFA Handbook.

Starting with barrel length they have this to say (emphasis added):

“The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and measured.”

Now that we know a permanently attached muzzle device is considered an extension of the barrel we can turn to their definition of overall length:

“The overall length of a firearm is the distance between the muzzle of the barrel and the rearmost portion of the weapon measured on a line parallel to the axis of the bore.”

Some people find this definition concerning since it specifically says muzzle of the barrel but does not mention a permanently attached muzzle device as in the definition of barrel length above.  However, they clearly intend it to be read as included since we see this comment later in the handbook concerning removing items from the purview of the NFA:

“For example, a shotgun with a barrel length of 15 inches is an NFA weapon. If the 15- inch barrel is removed and disposed of, the remaining firearm is not subject to the NFA because it has no barrel. Likewise, if the 15 inch barrel is modified by permanently attaching an extension such that the barrel length is at least 18 inches and the overall length of the weapon is at least 26 inches, the modified firearm is not subject to the NFA. NOTE: an acceptable method for permanently installing a barrel extension is by gas or electric steel seam welding or the use of high temperature silver solder having a flow point of 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.”

That interpretation is also in keeping with the actual federal regulation (27 CFR 479.11) which states:

“The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore.”

Finally, the ATF has issued an opinion letter which goes into much greater detail than the NFA Handbook and which specifically answers this question (See Question 4 on Page 3 below).

VFG_2011_Page_1

VFG_2011_Page_1

VFG_2011_Page_3

In summary, the length of a permanently attached muzzle device is added to both the barrel length and the OAL of a firearm for purposes of evaluating whether said firearm falls under the purview of the NFA.

Posted in AOW, ATF, Barrel Length, BATFE, Federal Law, Overall Length (OAL), SBR, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns | Comments Off on When does the length of my flash hider or suppressor add to the barrel length or overall length of my firearm?

May those prohibited from owning firearms due to a mental health issue hunt with black powder rifles?

I received a call from a potential client last week who was confused about the recent change to Virginia law regarding black powder firearms.

The conversation went something like this:

Client: “I heard that even if you can’t legally own firearms, you can now hunt with black powder rifles.  Is that right?”

Me:  “There was a change that went into effect on July 1st of this year but it’s quite a bit more complex than that. It depends upon the nature of your felony offenses and exactly what type of black powder firearm you want to use.  I have an article on my website that goes into more detail about the specifics.”

Client: “I saw that but it didn’t help me with my question.  I don’t have any felonies.  In my case I was involuntarily committed for treatment of depression over a decade ago. I would really like to be able to hunt again with firearms.  Does this change do anything for me?”

Unfortunately for this potential client, the answer I had to give him was a resounding ‘No‘. The recent change to state law only allows those whose prohibition is based on certain felonies to purchase, possess, transport, and use certain black powder firearms.  For more details on that scenario I would encourage you to read the original article which is linked above.

But for those prohibited from owning firearms because they have been acquitted of a crime by reason of insanity (§ 18.2-308.1:1), adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated (§ 18.2-308.1:2), or involuntarily admitted or ordered to outpatient treatment (§ 18.2-308.1:3) there has been no equivalent change.

Under Virginia case law (see Armstrong v. Commonwealth, 549 S.E.2d 641), a firearm is any device that is made to expel a projectile by the combustion of gunpowder or other explosive.  Black powder firearms clearly meet this definition and therefore remain barred to those whose prohibition is based upon mental health issues.

If you are in a similar situation and would like to discuss your chances of getting your gun rights restored, please feel free to contact me for a free consultation.

Posted in Black Powder Firearms, Criminal Law, Gun Rights Restoration, Hunting, Mental Health, Prohibited Persons, Purchasing Firearms, Virginia Law | Comments Off on May those prohibited from owning firearms due to a mental health issue hunt with black powder rifles?