Which buffer tubes may I use on my AR pistol?

Buffer_Tube_KitRecently a client contacted me to ask whether the addition of a carbine buffer tube to an AR pistol build would somehow transform the pistol into a short barreled rifle (SBR).

This question illustrates just how much confusion there is in the NFA community concerning the distinction between certain pistol configurations (which simply result in Title I firearms) and SBRs which are subject to registration under the National Firearms Act.

I will be writing more about specific questions regarding this topic but as for today’s question … per the ATF Firearms Technology Branch, so long as the receiver has never been transferred or configured as a rifle and therefore is eligible to be configured as a pistol then it does not matter what buffer tube you use so long as you are not in possession of a buttstock that “could readily be installed” on the resulting pistol.

ATF_Buffer_Tube_Letter

Posted in AR Pistols, ATF Guidance Letters, Firearms Technology Branch, NFA Trusts, SBR, Short Barreled Rifles | Comments Off on Which buffer tubes may I use on my AR pistol?

Form 1 is available on eForms once again!

logo_eFormsProbably the single question that I am asked more than any other is “When will eForms be back?”  And while I cannot answer for Form 4 applications I can tell you this … Form 1 is back as of today!

In a mid-day email update the ATF announced that, following a number of performance enhancements, Form 1 applications have been returned to the eForms system and that monitoring of the system’s performance under load will determine when other forms will be returned.

Of course I immediately logged into eForms and tried the Form 1 application.  It was significantly ‘snappier’ that its previous incarnation, although I cannot be certain whether that was based upon the touted performance enhancements or upon the fact that it had not yet become widely known that it was available.

If you have been holding onto a build waiting to be able to submit the application via eForms then today is your lucky day!

The remainder of the email also addresses ATF’s efforts to reduce the backlog of applications.

The full text of the email is included below:

Good afternoon:

We are pleased to announce the following updates to the eForms system:

1.      Performance enhancements – We were able to address some of the technical issues.  You will see improvements in the overall performance of the system.

2.      We are able to add the ATF Form 1 back to the eForms system.  Our plans are to closely monitor the performance of the system in order to determine if we will be able to add additional forms back to the system.

Below is an update on the status on our processing of paper and electronic NFA applications.  In the future, this information will be available through links on the eForms login screen:

 In follow-up to ATF’s letter dated April 16, 2014, regarding the status of the eForms system; this update is being provided to inform the industry of ATF’s progress in addressing eForms and paper NFA applications. To accommodate the substantial increase in application volume that has recently occurred, ATF is working diligently to decrease processing times while continuing to enhance the eForms platform.

What is our progress to date?

From a peak of over 81,000 pending NFA applications at the end of February 2014, as of June 18, 2014, ATF has reduced the number to less than 63,000 applications pending (23% reduction in pending applications).  In the last four weeks, although the NFA Branch received over 17,800 applications we processed more than 22,400 applications.

June_24_Letter_Graphic

The statistics in the table below represent the processing of NFA Forms over the past four weeks.

NFA FORMS PROCESSED BY WEEK
Date (Week of)

5/28/2014

6/4/2014

6/11/2014

6/18/2014

All Forms

4,815

5,629

5,635

6,323

eForms

1,199

1,204

1,905

1,682

Paper Forms

3,616

4,425

3,730

4,641

At the same time, ATF has directed additional resources to NFA application processing:

  • There are currently 15 Legal Instrument Examiner (LIE) applicants currently in the background investigation phase of hiring.
  • The use of overtime funding has been authorized for those employees processing NFA applications.
  • ATF has cross-trained LIEs from various other ATF branches to support NFA application processing.  This is an ongoing process and has already beneficially impacted application processing.
  • ATF has dedicated additional data entry contract resources to reduce the time it takes for an application to be entered into the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). As a result, data entry time has already been reduced from eight weeks to two weeks.

If you have any questions regarding any of the information included in this email, you may contact us through the eForms system by using “Ask the Experts” or by emailing us at eforms.admin_atf.gov.

Thank you for your continued support of eForms.

Posted in ATF, BATFE, eForms, Form 1, Manufacturing, NFA Trusts, Processing Times | Comments Off on Form 1 is available on eForms once again!

Did Abramski affect how organizations handle gun raffles?

Another question that has arisen since Monday’s holding in Abramski v. United States is whether the rules governing the acquisition of firearms for raffles were affected by the decision.

The short answer is no.  But there remains a great deal of confusion as to how raffles should be handled.  The ATF addresses the question in detail on their Frequently Asked Questions page.

Q: An organization without a firearms license wishes to acquire a firearm from a licensee for the purpose of raffling the firearm at an event. How does the licensee comply with the Brady law?

The licensee must comply with the Brady law by conducting a NICS check on the transferee. If the licensee wishes to transfer the firearm to the organization, a representative of the organization must complete a Form 4473, and a NICS check must be conducted on that representative prior to the transfer of the firearm. Alternatively, if the licensee transfers the firearm directly to the winner of the raffle, the winner must complete a Form 4473, and a NICS check must be conducted on the raffle winner prior to the transfer.

Please note, if the organization’s practice of raffling firearms rises to the level of being engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, the organization must get its own Federal firearms license (and the examples below would not apply).

Example 1: A licensee transfers a firearm to the organization sponsoring the raffle. The licensee must comply with the Brady Law by requiring a representative of the organization to complete the Form 4473 and undergo a NICS check. As indicated in the instructions on the Form 4473, when the buyer of a firearm is a corporation, association, or other organization, an officer or other representative authorized to act on behalf of the organization must complete the form with his or her personal information and attach a written statement, executed under penalties of perjury, stating that the firearm is being acquired for the use of the organization and the name and address of the organization. Once the firearm had been transferred to the organization, the organization can subsequently transfer the firearm to the raffle winner without a Form 4473 being completed or a NICS check being conducted. This is because the organization is not an FFL. However, the organization cannot transfer the firearm to a person who is not a resident of the State where the raffle occurs and cannot knowingly transfer the firearm to a prohibited person.

Example 2: The licensee or his or her representative brings a firearm to the raffle so that the firearm can be displayed. After the raffle, the firearm is returned to the licensee’s premises. The licensee must complete a Form 4473 for the transaction and must comply with the Brady Law prior to transferring the firearm to the winner of the raffle. If the firearm is a handgun, the winner of the raffle must be a resident of the State where the transfer takes place, or the firearm must be transferred through another FFL in the winner’s State of residence. If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, the FFL can lawfully transfer the firearm to the winner of the raffle as long as the transaction is over-the-counter and complies with the laws applicable at the place of sale and the State where the transferee resides.

Example 3: If the raffle meets the definition of an “event” at which the licensee is allowed to conduct business pursuant to 27 CFR 478.100, the licensee may attend the event and transfer the firearm at the event to the winner of the raffle. As in Example 2, the FFL must complete a Form 4473 and comply with the Brady law and the interstate controls in transferring the firearm.

Please note, procedures used in Examples 2 and 3 ensure that the winner is not a prohibited person and that there is a record of the final recipient of the firearm in the raffle.

[18 U.S.C. 922(t) and 922(a)(1)(A)]

Another scenario I have heard described involves a variation on Example 1 above in which a representative of the organization acquires the firearm on behalf of the organization but returns it to the dealer at the end of the raffle with the winner also being required to complete a 4473 and undergo a background check.  While the ATF does not address this scenario, I do not believe that it would run afoul of either current policy or the relatively narrow holding in Ambramski.

Having said all of that, organizations holding raffles should keep an eye on the ATF’s position in this regard.  As Andrew Branca noted in his review of the Abramski decision over at Legal Insurrection:

[Scalia in his dissent] noted that the ATF itself did not adopt the “straw purchase” position until 1976, fully 8 years after the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, at which time it changed to favor the “straw purchase” purchases are illegal position.  (NOTE:  This would seem to have implications for the currently existing “gifts” and “raffle prizes” exceptions, as it would seem that the ATF could as easily eliminate those by a mere shift in policy.)

Organizations should also keep in mind that these examples are only based upon federal law and states may have transfer requirements that are more stringent than federal law.

If you have a question about how to conduct firearms raffles in your state, you should consult with an attorney licensed to practice law in your state who is familiar with the appropriate transfer laws.

Posted in Federal Law, Firearms Raffles, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court | Comments Off on Did Abramski affect how organizations handle gun raffles?

Can firearms still be gifted after Abramski?

Christmas_GunsYesterday the United States Supreme Court handed down a 5-to-4 ruling in the case of Abramski v. United States.

The court held that a buyer may not answer ‘Yes’ to the question ‘Are you the actual transferee / buyer of the firearm’ when they have been given money by a third party to purchase the firearm even if the transfer to the third party also goes through a background check.

The case arose when Abramski’s uncle gave him money to purchase a handgun with Abramski’s law enforcement discount.  Abramski purchased the firearm, answering ‘Yes’ to the question  ‘Are you the actual transferee / buyer of the firearm’ and subsequently transferred the firearm to his uncle via a licensed dealer.  Abramski’s uncle himself completed a 4473 and passed the federal background check.

The court held that regardless of the uncle’s status, Abramski’s answer was a material misrepresentation of fact, subjecting him to prosecution under 18 USC § 924(a)(1)(A).

Having said that, let me answer a question that I have been asked repeatedly over the last 24 hours.  Abramski did not affect the legality of buying a firearm as a gift.  The ATF has repeatedly held that a buyer purchasing a firearm as a bona fide gift is the actual buyer of the firearm.  In fact, it specifically states this on page 4 of the 4473 form that a buyer completes when purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.

ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11 a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), (n), or (x).

The facts of the Abramski case limit the holding to those cases where the money for a purchase comes from one person who requests that another person purchase the firearm for them regardless of the reason or whether the initial purchaser is a prohibited possessor.

You may continue to give the gift of self-defense to family and loved ones.

Posted in Federal Law, Gifting Firearms, Interstate Firearm Transfers, US Supreme Court | Comments Off on Can firearms still be gifted after Abramski?

Suppressors, solvent traps, and legal traps

Solvent_Trap_Adapter2I was recently contacted by a client who was considering purchasing a threaded ‘solvent trap’ adapter and using it as the basis for a Form 1 build of a suppressor.

For those unfamiliar with a ‘solvent trap’ adapter, it is an adapter that allows an oil filter to be threaded on one end and the other end will fit a threaded barrel.

As sold the purpose is to facilitate barrel cleaning but with a small degree of workmanship, a properly sized washer, and an oil filter they can be converted into a suppressor.

That is what my client was interested in doing.  He wanted to file a Form 1 and, upon approval, legally build an inexpensive suppressor.  However, before doing so he had several questions:

1)  Which component would comprises the actual ‘suppressor’ … the adapter or the tube?

2)  If the tube is the actual suppressor (or an integral part) then would he be able to change the oil filter as it began to wear?

3)  Which component would need to be serialized?

The ATF has addressed these questions before and a copy of the relevant portion of a guidance letter can be viewed below.  But the simple answers are:

1)  The adapter and the oil filter together make up the suppressor as an integrated whole

2)  While a licensed manufacturer could change out such a component, an individual or trust who made a suppressor on a Form 1 could not unless they registered a new suppressor on a new Form 1 and submitted an addition $200 tax.

3)  The adapter and the tube would share the same serial number.

Therefore, it would generally not be cost effective to plan on using a ‘solvent trap’ adapter as the basis of a Form 1 build since you would be stuck using a single oil filter for its entire service life.

However, if you really like the idea of using an oil filter as a suppressor then there is another alternative.

Cadiz Gun Works of Ohio, which is a licensed manufacturer, sells a completed version of this design known as the EconoCan.   And because they are a licensed manufacturer they can replace the oil filters as they become worn for a modest fee … $25 at the present time.

The relevant portion of the ATF guidance letter is as follows:

Solvent_Trap_letter

Posted in ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, Form 1, Manufacturing, NFA Trusts | Comments Off on Suppressors, solvent traps, and legal traps