MEMORANDUM APR 3 1975 MEMORANDUM TO: Assistant Director Technical and Scientific Services VIA: Chief, Technical Services Division SUBJECT: Purification and verification of National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record PROBLEM Our basic problem is that of perfecting and protecting the integrity of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record which is vital to the implementation of the provisions of Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Our response to inquiries on the existence or nonexistence of proper registration of an NFA firearm is the basis for seizures, arrests, prosecutions, fines and imprisonments. Our testimony or certification as to the nonexistence of such record is evidence subject to close examination in court. We continuously discover discrepancies and inaccuracies in the registration file which, if discovered during a trial, would destroy the future credibility of such evidence. One resultant possibility is that a defendant who maintains he had properly registered his firearm but had lost his approved form could, subsequent to his arrest based on non- registration, locate his lost document. If the court should discover that our negligence caused an unwarranted arrest and trial, the resultant loss of public trust would be irreparable. Just as serious is the possibility that an innocent man might be convicted if he could not find his registration form when, in fact, we had failed to locate his registration in the Record. - 2 - BACKGROUND In 1969, shortly after passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, three Diebold machines were installed to house the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record forms, the 3x5 serial numbered cross reference cards on such registration and transfers, and the Technical Services Division's correspondence files. Originally one machine held the forms, one held the correspondence files, and the third held the card file. However, because of the increase in the number of registration documents in the forms file, five shelves, or a total of 25 tubs in the correspondence Diebold machine have been preempted for the filing of forms. Our most recent estimate of the number of registered firearms is 247,093. Of these, 70,000 were registered during the amnesty period and 117,093 have been registered since December of 1968. In addition, there are at times hundreds of thousands of firearms registered but awaiting imminent exportation. In addition, there is little room available at this point for any additional filing of forms, cards or correspondence. On February 7, 1971, Project TST 73-10 was initiated to microfilm registration documents, cross reference serial numbers in sequence to alphabetical file, and give instant retrieval of serial number or document through the use of a keyboard, with the primary purpose of the dual system being the safeguarding of the integrity of the Record. Proposed completion date was January 1, 1973. When our present microfilm clerk came on board in October 1972, she discovered that although 90% of the registration is by individuals had been microfilmed, 25% of those documents were incorrect, incomplete or indecipherable. During the period October 1972 to August 1974, Mrs. Maiolatesi corrected that portion needing to be re-microfilmed, and also microfilmed the remaining 10% of the individual registrations. However the law enforcement and industry registration records have not been coded and micro- filmed to date. Therefore, only 50% of all registration forms are estimated to have been microfilmed. Unfortunately, the coding system in operation in October 1972 was found to be basically lacking in that it was inaccurate and incomplete, making retrieval difficult if not impossible. Mrs. Maiolatesi set up a new coding system. - 3 - At a cost of $10,000, IRS had contracted with Kodak to produce a system by which microfilmed data could be corrected to show the transfer, theft, destruction, change of address or other meaningful data for any given firearm. The resultant method employed a stylus to indicate code numbers at the top of each piece of film. For example, if a man named John Doe transferred a firearm, Serial No. 95764 to another man named Joseph W. Brown, the code to be inserted to indicate Mr. Brown's acquisition of the firearm would be a numbered code, based on the binary system; 6 digits would be used representing the 2nd through 5th letters of the transferee's name (in this case, "rown") followed by two digits representing the initials of his first and middle names. The system might have been of potential value except for the fact that the delicate stylus employed was inaccurate for marking the minute numbers appearing on the film. The result was that it was difficult or impossible to identify the correct number. Therefore, it was useless to attempt to enter the required data on the microfilmed material. We have been informed than it would be impossible to improve the precision of the instrument. Another difficulty arose because of the large volume of forms received for the making, exportation, or transfer of firearms by and between special taxpayers. There was simply insufficient time for such information to be microfilmed on a daily basis. Since special taxpayers frequently transfer quickly, a daily microfilming would be required in order to have an accurate record of the firearms. Although, in transfers between individuals, efforts have been made to keep the microfilm information fairly current, this is updated on a six-months basis only. Since the turnover of firearms between special taxpayers is very heavy, an average of 30 changes a day would require 30 frames of microfilm. The processing paraphanelia is in the Laboratory at IRS and they will process as little as 1/4 to 1/2 roll for development. However, at the rate of 30 frames a day, this would result in actual processing only once a month which would be useless in view of the rapid turnover in firearms between special taxpayers. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of firearms registered but quickly exported. It is self-evident that it would be impossible to microfilm more than the present 50% of this material with any degree of accuracy and timeliness. - 4 - It has been felt that the security and integrity of the film could be better maintained if all look ups, searches, etc., could be of the microfilmed material. The original file would have been used only for court evidence and possible verification of card and microfilmed files. From a workable standpoint this has failed. Further, since the microfilm is in the same area as the other files it is no less susceptible to fire, riot, theft, or other possible hazard. Microfilm, if it did not explode from internal combustion during a fire, would probably melt since it is highly susceptible to temperatures. In summary, only about 25% of the Record is duplicated in microfilm and can be retrieved by name checks. No retrieval is possible based on serial numbers. Partial retrieval is of no value insofar as searches are concerned. The chief problem with using the Diebold file system is that only one person can use a Diebold machine at a given time. This means that if someone is checking for a form, for example, and someone else has a TWX or telephone call or other urgent matter, the original searcher is shunted aside to allow the urgent or priority matter to be resolved. This is not just an hourly occur- rence, it is a constant one. The result is loss of time for all concerned; the employee who must stop and wait has his concentration interrupted and his work is slowed, backlogs develop, overtime is generated and morale slumps. Furthermore, such interruptions tend to compound the probability of misfiling documents and cards. PROPOSED SOLUTION The most efficient system which could be used world, of course, be ADP. However, due to current budgetary limitations, this is impracticable. The most practicable and least costly (even less costly than the present system) is a simple duplication of the records by xeroxing-eliminating the microfilming. We suggest the following be implemented as soon as possible: 1. Close down the file and make xerox copies of all existing registration documents and cross reference cards in the Diebold machines. - 5 - 2. For accessibility purposes, place the document copies in open shelving and the 3x5 reference cards in the file drawer cabinets. 3. To ensure security in the event of hazard, relocate the Diebold machine containing the original documents intact to another floor. 4. To guarantee continued integrity, implement procedures whereby, as documents are received, copies are made and placed in work files and originals are sent to Diebold location for preservation of evidentiary material. We feel that both the problem of access to the files and the problem of overcrowding could be overcome by the use of a different type file for both forms and cards. To substitute for the microfilming equipment, insure maximum security of documents which may become evidence, implement a more realistic and positive means of duplicating all records (as well as to ensure physical separation) in order to overcome present delays and backlogs, to obtain necessary statistical data, and to locate and properly file misplaced documents would result in a savings of cost and man years, would be a means of purifying the Record and of implementing procedures to guarantee the continued integrity of the Record. It would eliminate the handling, marking, defacing and daily wear and tear of documents which are potentially evidentiary material. An added advantage of this system, once it is fully implemented, is that we can establish an accurate count of all registered firearms, by type. Once this is accomplished, a daily accurate accounting will be maintained. EXPLANATION OF ESTIMATED COST Initial duplication of records would involve closing down routine business for six work days, beginning on a Friday evening, with two shifts through the next week and through the following Monday up to the regular close of business (a total of 10 days) requiring 26 people, and 5 Xerox machines, for 112 hours of overtime. If the shutdown were not authorized, a total of 168 hours of overtime would be required. Based on 112 hours of overtime, however, at an average of - 6 - $6.00 per hour per person, the cost would be $17,472 plus approximately $500 in taxi fares, $17,972. Approximately 500,000 forms require xeroxing. If the machines on hand were used and 4 machines were rented from Xerox corporation under a GSA 60-day contract, the cost would be $13,007.64. On the other hand, if the closedown is not authorized, the 56 additional overtime hours, plus additional cab fares would add another $8,736 plus $300 to the total cost, or $9,036. With the 10-day closedown, then, the total cost would be approximately $30,779.64. If we do not close down for 10 days, the approximate cost would be $40,014.64. An alternative solution we might suggest, if funds are absolutely unavailable for the solution just delineated, is that we assign two Documents Examiners full time (authorize 32 hours a week overtime) and using a rented Xerox machine, for a period of 6 months, in order to duplicate the file. However, the purification and verification of the file would have to be accomplished on a piecemeal basis by Coordinators and Specialists and it is estimated this might take a year or more. This solution is obviously unsatisfactory from the point of view of the immediate need to establish the integrity of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The total cost, although spread out over a longer period, might well equal the cost of the preferred solution. It should be noted that the Privacy Act of 1974, with which we have only recently become familiar, subjects the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record to close scrutiny since, under the Act, individuals may have access to many of the documents and any inaccuracy could be grounds for civil and/or criminal actions. Because of the urgency of the situation, we have acquired 24 bookcases and several file shelves as a temporary expedient. It is estimated that $11,000 would be necessary to acquire the necessary shelving. Since efficiency is somewhat impaired by the use of bookshelves, we feel that funding should be approved as soon as possible. Also 3x5 card file drawer cabinets have been requisitioned. - 7 - Our educated guess is that one person working full time daily on the duplicating of the Record could accomplish this in just under two years. However, it is estimated that the purification and verification of the Record would take several additional years, making this solution entirely untenable because of excessive time factor. We are sure you will agree that this matter is of the utmost urgency. Our staff is available to supply any other information you may require and we are prepared to proceed with fulltime duplication, purification and verification of the record as soon as we receive formal notification as to which procedure is approved. [signed] Regonald T. West [attachment] In conjunction with our work relative to the Privacy Act, we recently examined a minute portion of the Division's Correspondence Files. During that cursory examination, we discovered three discrepancies which directly affect the integrity of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. (1) We had sent a letter to a taxpayer stating that his firearm had been removed from the Record. A check revealed that the serial number card was still in the Record. Had we received a TECS on this, we would have replied that the weapon was registered, when, in fact, it is not. (2) Stapled to the back of a yellow file copy of our letter to a taxpayer were two originals of approved transfers which should have been sent to the taxpayer with our letter. (3) An approved copy of a transfer form was attached to the yellow file copy of a letter, but there was no copy of the form in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Since errors such as this weaken the integrity of the Record and put in serious question the results of NFA searches and court certifications, we feel that the purification of our correspondence files should be coordinated with our project to duplicate, purify and verify the Record, as the problems inherent in the present situation are applicable to both and urgently require action. We checked one folder in one tub. We have 33 tubs of correspondence, each containing on the average of 15 folders, or a total of 495 folders. Rounding off to 500 folders and taking an average of one hour to review and purify each folder, this involves 500 man hours of work. The review [2 illegible lines of text] ?? that ?? NFA research employee could be used fulltime on this ?? of the project. It would take about 13 weeks, or 3 months, to complete the purification of the correspondence files. Obviously, if 2 employees could be spared for fulltime attention to this work, it could be completed in six weeks. NOTE: In addition to the above, it is our understanding that a recommendation is to be made that the Bureau maintain an alphabetical list of all individuals whose names appear in our records for the purposes of implementing the Privacy Act. In order to comply with such requirement, we must first purify the Record and out correspondence files. RE Purification of Records Forms which should be in Records are in correspondence (see memo on duplication of records.) There is one tub of "DEWATS" and "No serial number" forms. Dewat cards have been destroyed. Dummy cards must be typed and put in card file on all DEWATS. "No serial number" forms should be pulled and copies sent to field for in-depth investigation to locate registrants and have ATF Numbers assigned where required, or to examine firearm and find S/N. (May be 1,000 forms in this tub.) There are three tubs of "Registration not Required" which must be gone through to verify that firearms are Title I or Antique not requiring registration. For example, there are some which are M- 1's but there has never been an investigation to verify-that registrant does not have M-2 conversion kit with M-1. These forms were stamped "Registration Not Required" shortly after the amnesty period and it could well be (and we suspect that this is so) that some Title II firearms are in these files. (3,000 forms?) [illegible handwritten line] There are cards in the card file registering DEWATS to special taxpayers. These should be put in dead file since s/t's were supposed to know that they had to re-register them. BUT: Problem-- do we include all licensees in this category--and what is legal justification? Further, the forms on many have been destroyed or in cases of multiple registration, that S/N has been blacked out on the form (or, in later years, crossed off on the form). There are Forms for which there is no card and cards for which there is no Form. There is material in the forms file which should be in correspondence file, or in dead file. [illegible handwritten line] There are many, many dual registrations which should be resolved. [third memo] DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20226 MAY 9 1975 T:T:N:RTW MEMORANDUM TO: Director FROM: Assistant Director Technical and Scientific Services SUBJECT: Phase I of the Purification and Verification of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record- Duplication of the Record. As you are aware we have not had, over the years, a uniform system of filing in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. We have discovered numerous discrepancies and inaccuracies which require immediate corrective action. Attached is a self-explanatory, comprehensive report from the Chief, NFA Branch, detailing the problem involved. Briefly, the microfilming system has proved unsuitable for our purposes. How- ever, in order to ensure the safety of the Record, it must be duplicated, with the original Record being maintained apart from the duplicated Record. Inaccessibility to the files because of the utilization of Diebold files hampers our routine business involving NFA transactions and generates excessive backlogs requiring overtime. Urgently needed statistical compilations of data in the Record will also be obtained under this project. Of most vital concern, however, is that these discrepancies and inaccuracies in the Record, if discovered in a trial, would destroy the future credibility of such evidence. One possibility is that a defendant who maintains he had properly registered his firearm but had lost his approved form could, subsequent to his ar- rest based on non-registration, locate his lost document. If the court should discover that our negligence caused an unwarranted ar- rest and trial, the resultant loss of public trust would be irreparable. We dread to think that an innocent man might be convicted if he could not find his registration form and we certified that he had not registered the firearm when, in fact, we had failed to locate his registration document in the Record. - 2 - For these reasons we request permission to begin immediate duplication of the Record as Phase I in a project to purify and verify the Record. Following is a brief breakdown of estimated costs for this phase of the purification. Please note that the figures are somewhat at variance with those in the attached memo- randum since we have recently obtained more specific figures on file costs and we have also used more sophisticated analytic techniques to obtain the breakdown of personnel costs. Rental of 4 xerox machines on a 60-day contract $13,000.00 10 - 3 x 5, 18-drawer card files 2,960.00 22 Conservo-file cabinets 4,576.00 1840 hours of overtime at an average cost of $7.00 per hour 12,880.00 200 cab allowances at an average of $5.00 each 1,000.00 TOTAL $34,416.00 We will be glad to supply additional information or answer any questions you may have. If implementation of this phase of the purification project meets with your approval, we would appreciate your so indicating in the space provided below. [signed] A. Atley Peterson Attachment APPROVED:_________________________ DATE: _______ Rex 0. Davis Director [another memo] May 22, 1975 MEMORANDUM TO: Assistant Director (Inspection) THRU: Regional Inspector Thomas W. Hines Mid-Atlantic/North Atlantic Regions FROM: William A. Boone, Special Agent James A. Fowler, Inspector SUBJECT: Integrity of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records Approximately 247,093 registration forms are filed in two Diebold machines and 250,000 index cards filed in one Diebold machine. These three machines are fast approaching their full capacity for filing and storage of forms and cards. Presently, there Is no adequate back-up system to insure that the existing records are secure from a common disaster, fire or water damage. The storage room for the Diebold machines is protected by a sprink- ler system in the event of fire. Should the system be activated by fire or accident, the resulting water damage to the records could result in partial or total disruption In the use of the records. The microfilm project TST 73-10 which was initiated February 7, 1971, has proven ineffective. The memo dated April 3, 1975, from Chief, NFA Branch to the Assistant Director, Technical and Scientific Services, subject: "Purification and Verification of National Firearms Registration and-Transfer Records," (hereafter referred to as NFA Records) adequately documents the problems with the microfilm system. This has been corroborated by interviews with Mrs. Maiolatesi who does the microfilming and Evidentiary Document Coordinator, Eugene Reagan. Mrs. Maiolatesi relates the operational problems with the equipment substantially as outlined in the memo of April 3, 1975. Mr. Reagan has worked with the records continually from August 1974 to May 19, 1975, and has only used the microfilm records one time in an attempt to verify registration when no index card or registration form could be found. However, he was successful in verifying registration. Mr. West, NFA Branch Chief, has used the microfilm three times within the past three years for record searches. - 2 - The procedure for researching NFA records is completely manual except for the mechanical function of the Diebold machines. Record searches or "look ups" are made as a result of all types of requests to transfer firearms, inquiries originating from Criminal Enforcement and requests for certifications to be used as evidence. The refiling of index cards and/or registration forms is also performed manually. Flow charts now being prepared In the NFA Branch reflect a record search and refile time to be from five to ten minutes. Approximately eighty (80) record searches are made daily, thirty (30) for routine transfer applications, thirty (30) for evidence certifications and twenty (20) related to Criminal Enfor- cement activity. Using a five minute time factor for each record search, this reflects the records to be in use six hours and forty minutes per day. Record searches are hampered by the Diebold system which limits the index cards availability to one person at a time. Twelve (12) employees use the records daily and ten more em- ployees (includes after hours duty officers) have access to and use the records as necessary. Security procedures are established by attached memo dated June 26, 1974. The primary concern as set forth in the referenced memo of April 3, 1975, is the perfecting and protection of the integrity of the NFR and TR is a valid concern. This concern extends to top management levels within the Bureau as evidenced by expressed interest in the operations review now in process. The impugning of the NFA Records integrity in a criminal proceeding at either District or Appellate court level is now possible. However, the probability of this occurring is not readily predictable. Again referring to the memo of April 3, 1975. (page 1) note the statement "We continuously discover discrepancies and inaccuracies in the registration files which, if discovered during a trial, would destroy the future credibility of such evidence." Interviews with Mr. Reagan and Mr. West reflect the following types of discrepancies and inaccuracies existing in the NFA Records. Serial number and registered owner of firearm recorded on index card and no registration to support registered status. Serial number and registered owner recorded on registration form and no index card from which to locate the registration form. - 3 - Firearms registered that no longer require registration, i.e., reclassified from Title II to Title I (curios and relics) by special ruling. Dual registrations of firearms. Registration forms filed in "dead files" that contain current registrations of special tax stamp holders and former special tax stamp holders. Misfiled records, both index cards and registration forms. Records missing as evidenced by registered owner producing registration form when no form or index card was located in the NFA Record. An examination of NFA charge cards in Diebold trays 3-3, 8-7, 8-2, and 11-2 was made. These cards were compared with the NFA Records and the results are shown below: Serial number 890 - .45 cal. Thompson submachine gun, Model 1921, registered to Sheriff's Department, Kenton Co., Kentucky. Form 5 location shown by county rather than city. Entire Kentucky folder had to be checked to locate. Serial number 002566- Stoner 63 automatic S63, .223 cal. Index card checked out 3/6/67 to ANA could not locate since registered owner's name not recorded. Serial number 9571 - Dual registration. These are normally referred to the field when discovered In order to clarify status. Serial number 1568 - Dual registration. 53181 - H & R Handy gun, 410 gauge. Could not locate registration. IRS 8181 - Sawed-off shotgun. Could not locate registration. 53-2000181 - Model 11, 9mm. Index card checked out 6/5/73 to DLW. Could not locate registration form. 51-2000840 - Suppressor M-10. index card checked out 10/26/71 to DLW. Could not locate registration form. 384581 - Dual registration 1934 and 1958. No research or referral to field made. Misfiled - Two registration forms in the folder for Sheriff's Department, Kentucky, were forms for Sheriff's Department, Kansas. (now corrected) 1160 - K/44 M-44 7/92 mm. Index card shows ref. owner Cadmus Company. Some records concerning Cadmus were checked out and could not be located. They were located the next day. Four firearms checked were located in the NFA Records without difficulty. Currently when index cards are removed from the NFA Records, a charge card is inserted in its place on which is recorded sufficient information (in most instances) to locate the index card or folder containing the NFA registration. In past years, the charge card frequently did not reflect sufficient information to allow a record search to be completed, i.e., the name of the last registered owner. Numerous cards which lack sufficient information for a record check remain in the files, and it appears that nothing has been done to correct the problem. The 3 x 5 index cards are filed in trays contained in the Diebold machine and each tray contains from 1,200 to 2,600 index cards. Index cards are checked out principally for use In process- ing applications to transfer a firearm. If the transfer is approved, a notation is made on the index card reflecting the current registered owner, and the old registration or transfer form is attached to the last approved transfer form. All check-out cards inserted In lieu of index cards in trays Nos. 3-7, 8-6, 11-7, 12-1 and 12-2 were examined. In addition to the aforementioned spot check of fifteen firearms by serial number, it was noted that eleven index cards had been checked out two or more years ago, and four cards were checked out with no date shown. Although no extensive examination was made of the NFA Records, information gathered by interviews and spot checks is conclusive that an in depth examination would reflect the same information, increased proportionally. Considering the requirements of pertinent laws and regulations and the numerous problems which have evolved in the present system of keeping NFA records, we recommend that a management-level task force be assigned to analyze the MFA record system and reach a firm decision for recommendation to the Director. We believe the task force should consist of a representative of ADP, Criminal Enforcement, Regulatory Enforcement, and the Planning, Organization and Management Staff. Included in the recommendation should be the best type of record system available for utilization (whether it be manual or ADP) and recommended procedures for assuring that the integrity of this system will be perpetually maintained and the contents safeguarded. The Kepner Tregoe concept of problem analysis and decision making should prove beneficial In reaching the recommendation. In keeping with the fine tradition of the Bureau, we believe our system of firearms registration should be of such caliber that it can serve as a model for states and cities which now have gun registration laws or may enact them in the future. We believe that our system should be adaptable to the degree that if additional gun registration requirements are enacted by the Congress, such requirements may be implemented quickly and effectively. [signed] [signed] William A. Boone James A. Fowler Attachments PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING A SEARCH OF THE NFR AND TR RECORDS Request for Evidentiary Certification, Form 4637 1. Check index card when serial number known 2. Name check of original registration or transfer form. 3. Check folder 4. Check firearms not required to be registered folder 5. Sometimes check correspondence folder 6. Check special taxpayer folder Records check made at Request of Criminal Enforcement 1. Check index cards of serial numbers known 2. Check for name in four places (as in Evidentiary Certification search) 3. If a record found, go back to index cards Forms 4 and 5 1. Check index card (usually sufficient) 2. Check special taxpayer folder Form 10 1. Check index card (usually no record) 2. Check special taxpayer folder Thirty (30) transfers daily - 30 to 60 physical search motions Thirty (30) Evidentiary Certifications daily - 30 to 120 physical search motions Thirty (30) searches for Criminal Enforcement daily - 20 to 50 physical search motions COMMENT: The Chief, NFA Branch indicates that he has definitely considered ADP but his superiors decided that the manual system now in use or another manual system should be continued and that these systems, although quite expensive, would apparently negate any move toward a more flexible automated system. "Current budgetary limitations" were cited as the reason for deciding upon the all- manual system. We do not know how Mr. Peterson and/or Mr. Darr reached this conclusion. To our knowledge, no one, within recent years, has seriously considered any system of filing the records other than the one proposed in the memorandum of April 3, 1975. This proposal appears to be more an act of desperation than a recommendation based on management by objectives. A determination might later be made that a manual system, such as the one which has been proposed, would be the correct course to follow; however, it appears that NFA Branch Is at a crossroad. They have energetic people in several key jobs who have progressive ideas; they are in the process of filling newly authorized coordinator positions; and they are convinced that the present system is inadequate. The decisions made in the immediate future will have an impact on this branch for many years to come. We are of the opinion that these decisions must be based on thorough consideration of the available alternatives. [another memo] May 30, 1975 MEMORANDUM TO: Assistant Director (Technical and Scientific Services) FROM: Director SUBJECT: National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record The current audit being conducted by the Office of Inspection into the Office of Technical and Scientific Services has disclosed serious discrepancies in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained in the Technical Services Division. Please see memorandum dated May 23, 1975, from the Office of Inspection which is attached. I have received your memorandum of May 9, 1975, in which you request $34,416 to duplicate the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. I do not consider it advisable to duplicate a record which is admittedly inaccurate therefore, your request is denied. I an establishing a study group to review the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record and make recommendations to insure its accuracy and completeness. Mr. William T. Drake, Assistant Regional Director (Regulatory Enforcement), Midwest Region will chair the study group. Please ask your employees to extend full cooperation to the study group. [signed] Rex O. Davis [another memo] May 30, 1975 MEMORANDUM TO: Assistant Director (Criminal Enforcement) Assistant Director (Regulatory Enforcement) FROM: Director SUBJECT: Study of National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record I am establishing a study group to make recommendations for achieving accuracy and completeness of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record in the Office of Technical and Scientific Services. In accordance with your recommendations, the following people are assigned to be members of the study group with Mr. William T. Drake, Assistant Regional Director (Regulatory Enforcement), Midwest Region, who will act as Chairman. Mr. Charles F. Watson, CE Mr. Nick Voinovick, RE [another memo] [I only have parts I and II to this report] July 1, 1975 MEMORANDUM TO: Director FROM: Chairman, NFA Registration File Study Group SUBJECT: National Firearm Registration and Transfer Records This will be the final report on this phase of the Study Group's activity. The report is in the following sequence: Part I: Description of the current system and process, including identification of some of the more significant problems. Part II: Discussion of certain past actions initiated in an effort to improve the NFA Registration and Transfer Record operations, including a discussion of results, current status and related problems. Part III: Discussion of desired results in: A. Purifying the existing NFA registration files. B. Future operations involving the NFA registration files. Part IV: Discussion of alternatives to achieve the desired results, including evaluations of what each will or will not accomplish and cost estimates. Part V: Recommendations concerning alternatives and various related activities. Before getting into the specifics of the report, I want to note that a number of people contributed to this effort. In addition to Charles Watson and Nick Yoinovich who were "official" - 2 - Director members of the Study Group, George Cavanaugh (ADP Services Branch), Sandy Maiolatesi (NFA Branch), and Reggie West (NFA Branch Chief) voluntarily made significant contributions of time, effort and ingenuity in establishing objectives, identifying problems (both actual and potential), and in developing alternatives. The attitude of all of those involved in this project has been totally positive, constructive and supportive. They have, without exception, exhibited patience, a "can-do" approach and a commitment to resolving the problem. William T. Drake [new page] PART I DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT SYSTEM AND PROCESS, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF SOME OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS [new page] PART I Description of current system and process, including identification of some of the more significant problems The NFA Registration and Transfer Record, as it exists now, is comprised of two major file systems; 1) an Index Card file, and 2) a Registration Transaction Form 1. Index Card file - The Index Card file consists of 3 x 5 cards (Form M. 3153) which provide for recording information pertaining to a specific NFA weapon. As Registration (Transaction) Forms are approved, certain information, i.e., weapon serial number, model, barrel length, caliber/gauge, make and general description of the weapon, registrant's name and address, and the registration basis (form number and date of transaction), is transcribed to an index card. As the registration status of an NFA weapon changes (transfers) the index card is pulled, and the pertinent information, i.e., name of "new" registrant, form number and date of transaction is added to the original index card. The information on the index card then is only as accurate and complete as it was on the registration form. Index cards are filed in one Diebold power file in numerical sequence (weapon serial number), with the last three digits being the basic search sequence number. The purpose of the index card file is to allow research for registration status of a specific NFA weapon, based on weapon serial number only. If a search results in a "hit," then the card contains sufficient information to locate the Registration form(s), if necessary. In theory, the index card file should also prohibit duplicate registrations, that is, a specific NFA weapon being registered more than once or to more than one individual. However, in actuality, due to the volume of the file and the duplication of serial numbers by various manufacturers, multiple registrations do exist. - 2 - 2. Registration (Transaction) Form file - This file is further divided into three major segments a) an "individual" registrant file, b) a "dealer" file, and c) a "government" entities" (state, city, etc.) file. Within each of segments a) and b), the registration forms, are filed in alphabetical sequence by the last name of the registrant. Segment c) is set up with folders, alpha by state and alpha by city, within the state folder. There is a fourth "file," which contains Forms 2, "Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported," with related Forms 9, "Application and Permit for Exportation of Firearms." These "assemblies" are filed in a separate location, alpha by manufacturer, chronological within manufacturer folders. As a result of periodic changes over the years, Forms 2 and Forms 9 are filed in different locations,.using different systems. (This "file" has been maintained only since approximately 1973- prior to that time the forms were destroyed- and no index card is prepared for NFA weapons on these Forms 2.) There are additional separate special purpose files such as "Federal Agency files" and "ATF" files for transaction records which may be - even though not required to be-filed. There are nine (at least) different types of forms (with multiple revisions of each-since 1934) which serve as the basis for NFA registration. Essentially, each form provides the name and address of the registrant, manufacturer, importer, transferor (transferee, etc., and weapon identification, serial number, make, model, caliber, description, etc.). In addition to being the "official" registration form, this file provides the ability to make alpha searches to determine whether a specific individual has a currently registered NFA weapon. The file is updated by affixing the most recent transfer or registration form, relating to a specific weapon, to (on top of) any/all - 3 - prior registration/transfer form pertaining to that same weapon. This is a relatively recent procedure, and a significant number of transaction forms (pertaining to the same weapon) are still filed in separate alpha sequences. MAJOR PROBLEMS 1. Index card file contains numerous "charge out cards" (estimate very near to 1,000); some of which are dated several years back (1971, 1968, 1967, etc.) and contain minimal information (weapon identification only). This indicates that the index card (particularly those with prior year dates) are probably lost. If the registrant's name is not on the charge-out card, it would virtually be impossible to manually locate a transaction record to recreate a complete index card. 2. Index cards exist, but no related transaction record can be located. 3. Transaction records exist, but no related index card can be located. 4. Both index card and transaction record are missing. 5. Registration Forms (nine different types) exist in several revision formats. As a result, the format of information available differs which adds to research time. (Some registrations are based on "letter" applications.) 6. In prior years, applications to register weapons with no weapon serial number and/or vague descriptions were accepted. As a result, definite registration status is a difficult or impossible to establish in many instances. 7. Internal procedures for filing and updating records have been periodically changed and modified over the years as a result of personnel changes, etc. The result is a variety of procedures and systems which may or may not be consistent and compatible. 8. Weapon history record maintained on reverse of index card, which requires the card to be repeatedly removed from the file for updating, increasing the possibility of loss or misfile. - 4 - 9. Research activities are restricted to "one-at-a-time," due to Diebold power file unit limitations. 10. Records exist for weapons that are not required to be registered. 11. Dual (or more) registrations for one weapon. 12. Misfiled records - index cards and transaction records, serial number and/or alpha filed out of sequence. 13. Large numbers of NFA weapons manufactured and reportedly exported have never been entered into the file. 14. No complete "back-up" files to recreate NFA registration and transfer record in the event existing files are destroyed in whole or in part. 15. No ability to readily assimilate any reliable statistical data. 16. No ability to validate (in any volume) the current status of specific NFA weapons registered since enactment of the law. 17. Multiple weapons registered on one registration record. Except for Form 2 and Form 9, this causes a problem in determining the current status of a specific weapon. For example, one individual in Utah registered approximately 400 "destructive cannons" (projectiles) on one Form 4467 in 1968. (The above problems clearly indicate the possibility of an embarrassment to the Bureau. If we certify, for a court proceeding, that, based upon research of our file, a specific NFA weapon has never been registered or that a specific individual (defendant) did not register a weapon, and an attorney produces a valid registration, I cannot assess the potential legal ramification on past or future actions relative to NFA weapons.) [new page] PART II CERTAIN PAST ACTIONS INITIATED IN AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE THE NATIONAL FIREARMS REGISTRATION AND TRANSFER RECORDS [new page] - 5 - Part II Certain Past Actions Initiated in an Effort to Improve the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records In February 1971, a project (TST-73-10) was initiated to microfilm all registration documents in the file at that time. That phase was completed in June 1971. The intent of the project was to provide a second record file (microfilm) for use in the daily research activities. It was anticipated that once the initial microfilming process was completed and in use, a daily update of the microfilm tapes would be accomplished. (The daily update process includes a manual coding reference system on the microfilm images where transfers, etc., were involved.) During the initial microfilming process, the documents, file folders and Diebold file trays were serially numbered to facilitate location of the "hard copy" documents on a numeric search. As a part of this process cards were keypunched for each document reflecting: A. Name of owner B. State of residence C. Serial number of weapon D. Type of weapon (as stated on the transaction form) E. Manufacturer (as, and if, stated on the transaction form) F. Batch DLN G. Form number (in passing, this process identified 733 approved registration records for NFA weapons where no weapon serial numbers had been provided.) At the conclusion of this process (June 1971), the daily work counts established that in excess of 167,000 documents had been processed. The punch cards were processed, and a computer tape file was established and used to print (on a one-time basis) alphabetical and numerical (weapon serial number sequence) listings of all registration records in the file at that time. As I understand it (and quite frankly, I am not sure I do), these listings were to serve as a back-up or check for the microfilm tapes. - 6 - Unfortunately, no actions here taken to maintain (update) the tape files or listings. The keypunch operation was stopped completely when Kodak installed a unit on the microfilm equipment which resulted in the documents being microfilmed and coded for automatic numeric search capabilities without the necessity for an intermediate keypunch operation. I do not believe the system was fully utilized for a variety of reasons. As I understand it, the researchers did not have confidence in the automatic system and preferred to use the manual index card - transaction record search process. The microfilming process was stopped completely as of April 17, 1975. Between June 1971 and April 1975, the microfilm updating process was partial and sporadic. For example, transfers involving individuals only were updated; some government and law enforcement agencies transfers were updated; but sheriffs' offices and local police departments were not. Because of these conditions, the reliability of any research based exclusively on the microfilm tapes would be questionable. The 1971 computer tapes, program, edit records, documents used to set up that program, and the printed listings are still available. While they may not be of great value in conducting current research, they nay be of value in the partial verification of a purification process.