[Larson met on January 12, 2000, with staff of the House Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Apppropriations and of the House Committee on Government Reform. He personally transmitted the following letter and his responses to ATF's November 19, 1999, list of "Disadvantages" of establishing an amnesty period to correct errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). An identical letter to Chairman Dan Burton of the House Committee on Government Reform has not been included here.] Eric M. Larson P.O. Box 5497 Takoma Park, Maryland 20913 (301) 270-3450 larsone@erols.com January 12, 2000 The Honorable Jim Kolbe, Chairman Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government B-307 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Kolbe: This letter responds to your request that I review a document entitled "Disadvantages of an Additional General Amnesty Registration Period" which would apply to firearms under purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, as amended, that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) submitted to you on November 19, 1999. My specific responses are appended. Of the 10 concerns cited by ATF, seven are without merit and three can be addressed legislatively or by regulation, depending on the method used to implement an amnesty. It is troublesome that ATF does not recognize the long-term need to correct errors in its firearm registration recordsparticularly in light of the deficiencies reported in the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General (IG) audits in late 1998. As one example, the IG determined that more than 100,000 NFA firearms are currently registered to persons whom ATF has stated are dead. An amnesty period would be a reasonable way to ensure that these firearms are properly registered to the persons who are legally qualified to own them, as the law already requires and the Congress intends, so that ATF's records would be accurate and reliable. ATF has yet to develop a plan to address the deficiencies raised by the IG. If I can assist the Subcommittee in considering any of the foregoing issues, please let me know and I will be glad to do so. Sincerely, (signed---Eric M. Larson) Enclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Responses of Eric M. Larson to the Statement of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, and to the House Committee on Government Reform, Regarding the "Disadvantages" of Establishing an Amnesty Period Statements of ATF on November 19, 1999, and responses of Eric Larson, on January 12, 2000. ATF statement #1: "An amnesty would suspend enforcement of the NFA. Pending investigations and prosecutions for violations of the NFA might have to be terminated. There are now pending 298 defendants under indictment for violations of the NFA and another 638 persons being considered for prosecution by U.S. Attorneys offices. These figures do not include those cases and investigations still pending at the end of fiscal year 1992." Larson's response to #1: To address ATF's concern, the amnesty could be structured so as not to apply as a defense in pending criminal cases, investigations, or prosecutions. ATF statement #2: "Section 922(o), Title 18, U.S.C. prohibits the possession of machine guns not lawfully possessed prior to its effective date, May 19, 1986. The possession of any machine gun registered during a new amnesty period would still violate section 922(o). With respect to section 922(o), the law makes no provision for an amnesty." Larson's response to #2: It would probably up to the federal courts to decide whether section 922(o) of Title 18 overrides the NFA, or vice versa. I believe that the amnesty would override the 1986 law, but an opinion from the Department of Justice could be enlightening. ATF statement #3: "Amnesty would provide the criminally inclined an opportunity to possess unregistered NFA weapons with impunity." Larson's response to #3: The "criminally inclined" already "possess unregistered weapons with impunity." An amnesty would not change that. As noted on page 11 of the January 2000 issue of _American Rifleman_, Federal law on registration was defined in 1968 by the U.S. Supreme Court in _Haynes vs. United States_ (390 U.S. 85), "when it declared that . . . existing federal case law says with great finality that gun registration only applies to the law-abiding." ATF statement #4: "Anyone, including felons, mental incompetents, and persons whose possession of firearms would violate State and local laws, could register NFA weapons." Larson's response to #4: Excluding them from the amnesty, as well as disallowing any registration that "would violate State and local laws" would address this concern. ATF statement #5: "A new amnesty for registering machine guns, bombs, grenades, silencers, etc., will be perceived as a retreat by the Administration from its position of favoring stronger gun controls, e.g., banning the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons." Larson's response to #5: Offering an opportunity to correct defective records would more reasonably be seen as enhancing the Administration's position. ATF statement #6: "An upsurge in the making of NFA weapons, particularly short-barrel shotguns, can be expected as individuals seize the opportunity to acquire NFA weapons without incurring the $200 making tax. Also, the $200 transfer tax would be avoided by unlawful transfers to persons who would register the weapons during the amnesty." Larson's response to #6: To counteract fraud, I would suggest a $200 tax upon any unregistered NFA firearm that was not originally commercially manufactured in its present condition (e.g., a shotgun designed to be fired from the shoulder, whose barrels were cut down outside the factory), as a condition of its registration. A firearm which was originally commercially manufactured in its present condition would qualify for tax-free registration. ATF statement #7: "Firearms imported with certain restrictions, such as for sales samples or law enforcement use only, would be transferred to persons who would register the weapons during the amnesty and circumvent the restrictions." Larson's response to #7: There are relatively few of these firearms, which can come from only two places: (1) law enforcement agencies, or (2) Class III dealers. There would be no reason for a Class III dealer, much less a law enforcement agency, to knowingly violate existing law. Also, ATF could easily disapprove any application to illegally transfer the ownership of such a firearmwhich is already legally registered. ATF statement #8: "It would create ill-will on the part of persons who have been prosecuted for possession of unregistered NFA weapons, had their weapons seized, or voluntarily abandoned their weapons to ATF in the past." Larson's response to #8: There is no need to justify closed cases whose legal basis has already been established. Further, an amnesty would likely enhance ATF's public image. ATF statement #9: "A new amnesty would reward those who have unlawfully stockpiled unregistered contraband in anticipation of registering them during a future amnesty and encourage people to retain or acquire unregistered firearms in the expectation of other such periods." Larson's response to #9: There is no evidence to suggest that an amnesty would encourage people to stockpile unregistered NFA weapons in hopes of registering them during a future amnesty. ATF statement #10: "An additional amnesty would only be a temporary solution. It would be only a matter of time before people would claim they did not know about the amnesty or did not realize they had an NFA weapon in their possession." Larson's response to #10: Ignorance of the law is generally not recognized as a legitimate defense. In fact, an amnesty would strengthen ATF's legal cases by, among other things, enhancing the accuracy and reliability of ATF's records.