Posted: 12/5/2004 12:23:20 PM EDT
|
While looking for Form 1's online, I ran across this: LINK Amazing NFA Story It all started like this... Some guy registered a DEWAT way back in 1958. He dies. His widow wants to sell the DEWAT years later. ATF claims there is no record of the DEWAT on the NFRTR and, regardless of proof of original registration, ATF claims the gun is contraband. Give it up or else... The only thing missing is the stormy weather, the lighting, the thunderstorms, the fear, the intimidation, and, well, you get the idea... Read the Ken Crane letter for a great intro... The documents posted here are being made available in the public interest by Mr. Kenneth K. Crane, who as his letter notes has formally complained on March 1, 2003, to the Department of Justice Inspector General about how ATF claimed that a DEWAT machine gun was unregistered and, therefore, contraband that must be seized and forfeited, but later determined (using the same evidence) that the DEWAT was legally registered. These documents are self-explanatory, and are intended to assist other persons who lawfully collect or deal in NFA firearms and devices, DEWATs in particular, although they could apply in other legal situations involving a registration that ATF questions. While Mr. Crane has gone public with his complaint, I would like to respectfully request that you not contact him for additional information –– all of the documents that any of you would need to challenge an ATF action as Mr. Crane did are already posted here, and they represent the brief kind of summary that attorneys and others need. The impact of Mr. Crane’s experience seems likely to force major changes in the ways that ATF adjudicates at least some applications for transfers of certain DEWATS. While these documents won’t people who have inappropriately transferred a DEWAT to a person who isn’t a lawful heir, they do appear to represent a drastic, unpublicized change in ATF’s policies and interpretations of the law regarding at least some DEWATs. There were a number of companies that legally imported machine guns for purposes of turning them into DEWATs during the 1950s. Apparently, the process of importing them at that time also registered the DEWATs with ATF, and ATF may still have many if not all of these records. As the listed documents show, ATF’s initial determination that the DEWAT in Mr. Crane’s situation was not legally registered (in a letter dated March 19, 2002), was made after a lengthy period of study (Mr. Crane’s application for transfer was received by ATF on August 6, 2001). There was an even longer period during which ATF actively by nonresponse to repeated inquiries by Mr. Crane's attorney discouraged the transfer—from March 19, 2002, until it was finally approved by ATF on January 14, 2003. ATF approved the transfer only after Mr. Crane’s attorney, who was tired of getting the runaround, stated in a letter that he was going to compel ATF to approve the transfer by filing a lawsuit in Federal District Court. The documents posted here clearly demonstrate and prove ATF’s disregard of the law in its long attempt to discourage and deny this lawful transfer. Otherwise, why did ATF approve the transfer rather than go to Federal District Court? One interpretation is that ATF doesn’t want to have what the definition of "a registered NFA firearm" determined by a Federal Court. The reason is that would mean putting ATF staff, including ATF Special Agents, on the witness stand and subjecting them to cross-examination about ATF’s registration practices under oath, and the Court’s decision would be entered into the legal system as case law, compelling ATF to from that day forward stop illegally denying lawful transfer applications. It would be a serious legal instruction from a Federal District Court, and ATF would be forced to comply with that instruction. In the larger picture (beyond situations involving only some DEWATs), given the serious extent to which the NFRTR has been proven to be inaccurate and incomplete, ATF’s serious, continuing mismanagement of the NFRTR would be brought to much wider attention. It is noteworthy that ATF has not rushed to place clarifying instructions on the transfers of certain DEWATs on its Internet Web Site, which has a section explaining how NFA firearms in estates should be transferred. It is also signficant that the Congress asked ATF in May 2000 about its handling of NFA firearms in estates. Specifically, the House Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations asked ATF, in writing: SUBCOMMITTEE’S QUESTION: "For the years 1997-99, how many NFA-governed items for which transfers from decedent were sought by an heir did ATF confiscate because there was no NFRTR record of a valid license?" ATF’S RESPONSE: "We have no knowledge of any instance where ATF confiscated a lawfully registered firearm from a legal heir." In this exchange, ATF clearly answered a question that the Subcommittee didn’t ask. There would be no reason, as ATF has stated, for ATF to confiscate a lawfully registered firearm from a legal heir. The situation with the DEWAT that Mr. Crane sought to purchase from a legal heir, is the kind of situation that the Subcommittee was asking about and clearly wanted to know about—and also the kind of situation that ATF didn’t want to talk about. Maybe now, ATF will be required to talk about it. The above exchange is documented in a printed Congressional hearing record. Specifically, it appears in TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 1st Session. PART 3: STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001, page 23. Click here to review. Further, as of this writing, ATF also has not published proposed rules in the FEDERAL REGISTER clarifying and explaining the major unpublished change in its policy regarding the registration status of certain DEWATs. Since ATF has apparently decided not to publicly explain its change of policy regarding the registration status of certain DEWATS, this information is being posted here as a public service, in the hope that the right people in the Government will read it and put a stop to the way ATF is mismanaging the NFRTR and its administration of the NFA. Ironically, the people who are most likely to be victimized by ATF in future DEWAT situations such as experienced by Mr. Crane are those who have only done their best to follow the law, by applying for the transfer of an NFA firearm for which they have the valid registration document, as did the lawful heir. People who own these DEWATs, and their lawful heirs, have the right to know that ATF is trying to seize their property illegally. If you have legal questions about a particular situation, you would be well advised to copy these documents and show them to a qualified NFA attorney, and obtain a competent legal opinion, rather than contact Mr. Crane who is not an attorney and cannot give legal advice. Finally, Mr. Crane has arguably done a courageous thing. While he has gone public with his complaint, I believe that we in the Class III community should make special efforts to respect his privacy and his time. Mr. Crane works hard for a living, as I think we all do, and I hope we can repay his kind assistance and courage by taking matters with which we have disagreement with ATF into our own hands, and our own attorneys if necessary. Those of you, who want ATF to stop its inappropriate activities, could easily write to your Congressional representatives and ask them to support Mr. Crane’’s complaint, by urging that the Department of Justice Inspector General investigate the situation that Mr. Crane experienced, as well as other situations involving ATF which have negatively affected you and/or others. ATF is not immune to Congressional and oversight pressures, as events in recent years have demonstrated, such as in the Congress appropriating as of this point $1 million ($500,000 was appropriated and approved for use in Fiscal Year 2002; and the Congress appropriated and approved another $500,000 for use in Fiscal Year 2003) and requiring ATF to use it to correct errors in the NFRTR. Although these are not specific line items in each appropriation act as passed, agencies are expected to follow such "report language" and to expend such funds from the general budget. So far, ATF has not reported to the Congress on how it has spent this $1 million in appropriated funds, to assure that the NFRTR is accurate and complete as the Congress has requested. The situation Mr. Crane experienced is blatantly inexcusable, and cannot be reasonably justified under any scenario of facts in his case. Similar future situations should be similarly resolved in favor of the lawful registrant or his/her lawful heir. |