Does the ATF treat angled fore-grips the same as vertical fore-grips?

Angled_ForegripI received an email today from a client who wanted to know whether an angled fore-grip on an AR pistol makes it an AOW subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA) as is the case with a vertical fore-grip.

One might be tempted to assume that the same logic that the ATF applies to vertical fore-grips would also apply to angled fore-grips.  After all, their logic is that adding a vertical fore-grip means that the pistol is “no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.

However, in a 2010 guidance letter from the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch, we see that the addition of an angled fore-grip, specifically the Magpul AFG, would not make a pistol an AOW.

 

Additional letters confirming this position followed in 2011 and 2013 and the logic is extended to the FAB Defense PTK.  At this point, one would have to assume that any angled fore-grip of similar design would enjoy the same interpretation.

ATF_Letter_AFG2

ATF_Letter_AFG3

ATF_Letter_AFG4

 

Posted in AOW, AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, Firearms Technology Branch | Comments Off on Does the ATF treat angled fore-grips the same as vertical fore-grips?

What should you do if you get an approved eForm with a DRAFT watermark?

DraftToday one of my clients received an email with an approved eForm 1 attached. He immediately forwarded it to me so that I could update the schedule of assets in his NFA trust.

The problem?  His eForm 1, which was approved, had a large DRAFT watermark across the face.

This is not a new problem.  People have been experiencing this issue off and on since the eForms system was first introduced but it continues to occur and you should make sure that your approved eForms do not bear the DRAFT watermark.

According to one of the ATF examiners, this is the result of the pdf not generating properly and a corrected form should be requested.

To request a corrected form you should send an email to your examiner or [email protected].  In the email you should indicate what the problem is and include the serial number of your approved NFA items as well as the control number found on the top left corner of your eForm.

The ATF indicates that you should receive an updated form via email within 24 to 48 hours. Interestingly, the updated forms often have an approval date that is different than the original form which had the DRAFT watermark.

Posted in ATF, BATFE, eForms, Form 1, Form 4, NFA Trusts | Comments Off on What should you do if you get an approved eForm with a DRAFT watermark?

May I consign my NFA items to an FFL/SOT?

Consignment

One of the more common questions I am asked is whether the owner of an NFA item may consign it to an FFL/SOT to facilitate a sale.

The answer, like so many where the NFA is concerned, is both “Yes” and “no.

Let me explain …

Yes” a seller may send pictures and details of an NFA item to an FFL/SOT who will then attempt to facilitate a sale.  If the resulting buyer lives in the same state as the seller then they may do a private Form 4 transfer between them.  If the buyer is in another state then the seller must do a Form 4 transfer to an FFL/SOT in the buyer’s state of residence who will then do a Form 4 transfer to the buyer.

But “no” you may not deliver the NFA item itself into the possession of an FFL/SOT without doing a Form 4 transfer and paying the accompanying transfer tax.

I have heard rumors that some FFL/SOTs will take an NFA item in for ‘repairs’, which does not require a transfer tax, and then show the item to prospective buyers while it is waiting to be ‘repaired’.  I would not suggest using such a tactic to skirt the transfer tax requirement since the ATF notoriously lacks a sense of humor where tax evasion is concerned.

I should also note that these same rules apply equally to items owned by individuals or by an NFA Trust.

For more information about NFA transfers, see Chapter 9 of the ATF NFA Handbook.

Posted in ATF, BATFE, Consignment, FFL Issues, Form 4, Interstate Firearm Transfers, NFA Transfers, NFA Trusts, Non Resident Issues | Comments Off on May I consign my NFA items to an FFL/SOT?

Does the Castleman holding overrule White?

Firearms_SCOTUS_Castleman_Notice_2014There seems to be some disagreement in the legal community here in Virginia as to whether or not the decision in United States v. Castleman handed down by the United States Supreme Court earlier this year overruled the 4th Circuit’s 2010 decision in United States v. White.

I was contacted by a potential client who had received conflicting advice on whether or not he was now a prohibited person based upon a conviction that was previously held, under the White decision, to not be a prohibiting offense.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with either case, a little background is in order.

In the White case, the 4th Circuit ruled that the federal law which prohibits the purchase (18 U.S.C. 922(d)(9)) and possession (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9)) of firearms by those who have been convicted of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ did not apply to Virginia cases unless the trial record clearly shows that  “force, greater than a mere offensive
touching” was used during the commission of the crime.

The basis of the White decision was the definition of ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ from 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A)(ii).  That definition states that to qualify, an offense shall have “as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

In determining what the term ‘physical force’ meant, the White decision said that it clearly required more than “a mere offensive touching.”  Since Virginia still “retains the common law definition of battery, which includes even the slightest offensive touching as an act of battery,” absent additional findings in the record that the use of force exceeded this threshold, this definition is not met by Virginia cases.  Based upon this opinion, numerous persons were deemed not to be prohibited and their records were marked as such.

Fast forward to March of this year when the United States Supreme Court handed down a 9 – 0 ruling in the Castleman case.  The question presented boiled down to the same definitional quandary … what is meant by the term ‘physical force’ when used in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A)(ii)?

In Castleman, the court held that the “‘physical force’ requirement is satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction — namely, offensive touching.

Since this holding seems to completely negate the reasoning supporting the White decision, I believe that Castleman does overrule White.

Those who have domestic violence convictions in Virginia who were previously flagged as not prohibited will now be considered prohibited by the Virginia State Police and the federal government and will be subject to possible criminal prosecution if they answer that question incorrectly on a purchase form.

I should note that there are attorneys in Virginia who disagree with this analysis but until we see an opinion holding otherwise, I will advise my clients who are in this situation to seek a pardon as the only available legal remedy.

Posted in 4th Circuit, ATF, BATFE, Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, Federal Law, Virginia Law, Virginia State Police | Comments Off on Does the Castleman holding overrule White?

Does a protective order affect suppressors as well as firearms?

Protective_OrderThe issuance of a protective order has become an increasingly common event in our judicial system and those who own firearms need to be particularly aware of the implications of becoming the subject of such an order. And this is certainly true of those who own a valuable NFA collection.

By now, I believe that most people understand that during the time a person is subject to a protective order, they may be subject to a prohibition on the possession of a firearm. However, in an interesting twist on the topic, I received a call from a potential client this morning asking whether this prohibition on possession might also apply to suppressors.

My initial thought was that suppressors are not firearms and are little different than a scope or other accessory.

However, I knew better than to apply the cold light of pure logic to a legal question and so I started with a quick review of Virginia state law.

Section 18.2-308.1:4 of the Code of Virginia governs the purchase or transportation (but not mere possession) of firearms by persons subject to protective orders.

It is unlawful for any person who is subject to (i) a protective order … to purchase or transport any firearm while the order is in effect. Any person with a concealed handgun permit shall be prohibited from carrying any concealed firearm, and shall surrender his permit to the court entering the order, for the duration of any protective order referred to herein. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

A quick review of Virginia law and case law fails to show that the term ‘firearm’ should be expanded to encompass a suppressor and in any case, Virginia law only prohibits the purchase and transportation of ‘firearms’.  It does not prohibit their continued possession.

So … It appears that we do not have a state law issue. Now we turn to federal law.

18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) is the federal statute which governs the transportation and possession of firearms (and ammunition) by those subject to certain protective orders.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person

(8) who is subject to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; …

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

It should be noted that this only applies to certain protective orders that meet enhanced requirements.  However, we are once again left with the term ‘firearm’ that may be subject to definition.  In fact, we do have such a definition in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3).

(a) As used in this chapter

(3) The term “firearm” means

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;

(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or

(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

So there you have it.  If you are subject to a protective order that meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) then you must treat your suppressor just like a firearm or ammunition and the federal prohibition on possession and transportation will apply.

If you are uncertain whether the protective order against you meets these requirements, the following chart provided by the ATF should be of some assistance.  If you match at least one diamond from each section then you are subject to the federal prohibition.

Protective_Order_Federal_Chart

 

Should you receive notice that you are subject to such a protective order, I recommend immediately surrendering possession and control of your firearms, suppressors, and ammunition to a joint trustee of your trust if you are using a trust to hold your items, or, if not, to a trusted friend or family member for the duration of the protective order.

Posted in Federal Law, NFA Trusts, Protective Orders, Suppressors | Comments Off on Does a protective order affect suppressors as well as firearms?