Responses to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' Internal Investigation of my complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------------col. 1 My five original allegations quoted from my letter dated May 10, 1997, to the Treasury Department Inspector General: col. 2 BATF's responses quoted from the "Synopsis" of its internal investigation and final report dated September 8, 1997: col. 3 My comments: col. 1 "1. ATF employees have deliberately destroyed original firearm registration documents that they are required by law to maintain, as noted in sworn testimony in 1996 by ATF Special Agent Gary N. Schaible. In analyses of data made public by ATF, I found that during 1992 to 1996, ATF may have added 119 or more firearms to the NFRTR which were originally registered on Form 1 or Form 4467 during 1934 to 1971, for which ATF lost or deliberately destroyed the original records." col. 2 "OI determined that the ATF employees referred to in the first allegation as being suspected of destroying records were, in fact, contract employees who were hired to assist in the backlog of paperwork that resulted from an influx of registrations as per [deleted by ATF]." "Depending on the year in question, if there was an increase in any National Firearm Act (NFA) firearm registrations, as alleged, this may have been an adjustment as a result of a different form number or registration data for the particular firearm." col. 3 Page 23 (references are to the FOIA page numbers) states that contract employees were suspected regarding missing NFA paperwork during 1986-87; on page 22, Mr. Schaible apparently identifies this same incident as the subject of his May 21, 1996, testimony, yet in his 1996 testimony Mr. Schaible states that BATF employees could have thrown away the defendant's registration documents in 1994. It does not appear that these discrepant statements, each made under oath, can be reconciled. BATF offers no empirical evidence for this hypothetical interpretation, and does not even directly answer the question. Proof of firearms being added may be established by determining if a "docket number" (first created in 1976 for keeping track of incoming paperwork) is found on the records of firearms registered in or before 1971, and by other methods that BATF apparently did not employ. col. 1 "2. ATF employees registered almost 2,500 unregistered NFA firearms on Form 4467 after December 1, 1968, without proper authorization by the Congress. In addition to not being authorized by the Congress, such registrations were prohibited by the Supreme Court in 1971, yet it appears that ATF registered more than 172 unregistered NFA firearms on Form 4467 after 1971. I have included an example of one apparently illegal post-December 1, 1968, Form 4467 registration in my 1997 testimony." col. 2 "To address the second allegation, ATF continued to register weapons after 1971 because the backlog of paperwork that resulted from the amnesty period was very large and filing the documents required extra time. In addition, some individuals were granted extra filing time if they were out of the country when the time expired for filing. col. 3 A statement on Form 4467 states that "This form cannot be accepted for registration of a firearm except when received by Director during the time period November 2, 1968, through December 1, 1968." As my 1997 testimony documents, each Form 4467 had a date/time stamp applied on the rear to indicate receipt, and actual time filed in some cases was in 1969; however, a Freedom of Information Act request disclosed that the date of registration, which BATF reports in its statistics, is the actual date the form was filled out by the person who registered the firearm, and BATF's own data indicate that nearly 2,500 firearms were registered on Form 4467 after 1968. BATF has not answered whether it has illegally registered firearms on Form 4467, despite clear evidence that it has done so. Notably, BATF has not disclosed any required notice in the Federal Register or other Congressional authorization to accept registrations after December 1, 1968. col. 1 "3. ATF employees Edward M. Owen, Jr. and Terry L. Cates committed felony perjury in letters written to me dated March 23, 1992 and July 29, 1993, respectively. Mr. Owen and Mr. Cates each alleged that "an unlawful trafficker in drugs with an extensive criminal record" was in possession of a .410 bore H&R Handy-Gun "while committing drug violations." This alleged instance of criminal conduct was used to deny my petition to remove the H&R Handy-Gun from the NFA as a collector's item. col. 2 "Regarding Larson's third allegation, the truthful information furnished to Larson by [deleted by ATF] and [deleted by ATF] in their respective letters involves a criminal case in Oregon investigated by ATF. The suspect, John David Dudley, a multi-convicted felon, dealt in narcotics and illegally possessed firearms which included an H&R Handy-Gun. Dudley was charged and subsequently pled guilty in Federal court on Federal firearms violations. col. 3 The H&R Handy-Gun in question was, in fact, in the possession of an acquaintance of the drug trafficker at the time of the violations. BATF's manner of stating "possession" implies that the trafficker was carrying the H&R Handy-Gun on his person at the time the drug crimes were committed. BATF has interpreted that the drug trafficker was in "constructive" possession of the H&R Handy-Gun, even though he was not charged with illegally possesssing it (see page 27 of the internal BATF report). There is the truth, and then there is the legal truth. col. 1 [3. continued] In fact, a Freedom of Information Act Request disclosed that the Handy-Gun was recovered from an acquaintance of the trafficker, who said that the trafficker had given it to him for safe-keeping (see pages 212-215, 222-230, and 233-236 of my 1996 testimony). Any person who petitions for removal of a firearm from the NFA must state the reasons under penalty of perjury. The plain language of the statue at Title 26, U.S.C., ' 5861(l) and ' 5871 applies to any person who knowingly makes or causes the making of a false entry on any document required to be prepared as a result of administering the NFA. Both Mr. Owen and Mr. Cates deliberately falsified the facts of the case they cited." col. 2 [no response by BATF] col. 3 As noted, the characterization may not have been legally false; however, it was definitely misleading. col. 1 "4. Certain 'registration activity' that ATF classifies as "OTHER" could include registrations of firearms that one or more ATF employees registered contrary to law, because ATF has refused to disclose the nature of this 'registration activity.' To the best of my knowledge, I've never heard of any forms numbered other than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 or 4467 being used to register or transfer NFA firearms. According to a letter to me dated January 9, 1997, from NFA Branch Chief Nereida W. Levine, the 'OTHER' category is 'comprised of registrations where the form number is different from the other ones tabulated.' Ms. Levine, however, has declined to provide the names or numbers of these forms. Coupled with the other evidence of registration mismanagement I have documented, it appears that the "OTHER" category may represent firearms that were registered illegally, as noted in my 1997 testimony." col. 2 Larson's fourth allegation suggests that ATF is using the "other" category to illegal register firearms. However, this category is used when the computer program cannot recognize a non-standard document that has been submitted for registration. For instance, some registrations were actually filed in correspondence on letterhead. If an ATF employee entering the information into the computer enters a Form 3 as a Form 33, the program will assign the document to the "other" column. The fact that the form is entered in the "other" column does not mean that the firearm is illegally registered. col. 3 [note: each of my responses exactly parallels the BATF's in this question] During each year from 1992 to 1996 (the most recent year for which the BATF has released NFRTR data), there were more than 8,000 entries under the "OTHER" data category. What are these "non-standard documents?" There is a separate "LTR" category, which Gary Schaible stated contains firearms that were registered or transferred on letterhead, when standard forms were not available. A normal computer program for sensitive documents would not accept the incorrect entry of a form, and data entry could not proceed. How many other errors were created in the NFRTR because of a failure to properly debug the computer software? Neither does it mean that an incorrectly registered or transferred firearm can be located in the NFRTR. Consider the statement of Mr. Thomas Busey in the October 1995 "Roll Call Training" session: "It was fine to begin putting everything in accurate a year ago or at least be guaranteed a year ago it was correct, but what are you going to do with the entries that go back to the early 80s and the 70s and the 60s?" col. 1 "5. It appears that a significant number of NFA firearms are registered to persons who are deceased, and that ATF has been aware of this fact since at least 1981 and done nothing about it, as noted in my 1997 testimony. Consequently, a significant number of NFA firearms are now illegally possessed by persons who are unaware that they are in violation of the law. The reason is that many firearms classified as 'Any Other Weapon' are rare collector's items that many people do not consider weapons, as noted in both my 1996 and 1997 testimonies. col. 2 "In his fifth allegation, Larson states that some of the NFA weapons may be registered to deceased persons. While it is possible that, unknown to ATF, some NFA weapons may be registered to deceased individuals, the integrity of the NFA is incumbent upon the individuals who possess legally registered firearms to report deaths and reregister the weapon. col. 3 "Unknown to ATF?" Excuse me. As my testimony and letter to the IG state, an internal BATF report dated July 1, 1981, by BATF employee Deron Dobbs, states: "We have the condition where people who registered firearms under the original National Firearms Act at age 65 would now be 112 years old. We know that these people are dead and their heirs have not taken the necessary steps to contact us so that the involuntary transfer created by the registrant's death can be formalized." col. 1 [5. continued] ATF's most recent data (as of December 31, 1996) disclose that of the 14,259 firearms registered during 1934 to 1939, exactly 11,175 (78.4 percent) are still currently owned by the person or entity that registered or acquired it during that same time period. And of the 58,904 firearms registered in 1968, a stunning 85.4 percent are still owned as of 1996 by the same persons who registered or received them by transfer in 1968. Consider that in 1981, an internal ATF study reported: 'We have the condition where people who registered firearms under the original National Firearms Act at age 65 would now be 112 years old. We know that these people are dead and their heirs have not taken the necessary steps to contact us so that the involuntary transfer created by the registrant's death can be formalized.'" col. 2 [no comment by BATF] col. 3 BATF's most recent (as of December 31, 1996) data disclose that exactly 108, 556 persons have never legally transferred the ownership of machineguns, bazookas, sawed-off shotguns, hand grenades, anti-tank rifles, and similar devices that they registered or acquired by transfer in or before 1971. Of the 58,904 amnesty registrations, 50,314 (85.4%) are still owned by the same person. Since the social security number was a required data field, it would take no more than a few hours to determine from the Social Security Death Index exactly how many NFA firearms are registered to people who are deadand when those people died. ----------------------------------------- col. 1 My summary of the problems, issues, and proposed solutions, quoted from my letter dated May 10, 1997, to the Treasury Department Inspector General: col. 2 BATF's reponses quoted from the "Synopsis" of its internal investigation and final report dated September 8, 1997: col. 3 My comments: col. 1 "One result of ATF's negligence is that some persons who own certain rare, valuable firearms that have special value to collectors have been instantly transformed into criminals. The reason is that through natural disasters (such as the recent floods in North Dakota, house fires, and similar tragic events), the owners of these firearms have lost their copies of the documents which prove their lawful ownership, and the law does not allow these firearms to be voluntarily re-registered." col. 2 [no comment by BATF] col. 3 The 5th Amendment apparently applies to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as an institution. But who answers for the institution? col. 1 SOLUTION #1: "Administratively removing approximately 17,000 'curio or relic' firearms classified as 'any other weapon' under the NFA, which were originally commerically manufactured in or before 1934 (but not replicas thereof). The Congress determined that these 'any other weapon" firearms were mainly collector's items and not likely to be used as weapons in 1960. It was not until 1968 that the Congress passed legislation enabling these firearms to be removed from the NFA as collector's items." col. 2 [Larson's] first recommendation is to remove 17,000 "any other weapons" listed under the NFA. Although Congress did enable firearms classified as collector's items to be removed from the NFA, contrary to Larson's interpretation it did not mandate their removal. Therefore, if an individual weapon is suggested for removal, ATF will consider the particular firearm on a case-by-case basis and determine if removal is warranted. col. 3 I never stated anywhere in my letter of complaint, or in either my 1996 or 1997 testimony, that the Congress mandated any firearm to be removed from the NFA as a collector's item. Identify exactly where I stated this. That is not what the law says, and I didn't say that. On page 115 of my 1996 testimony, I did state: "Mr. Chairman, no legal evidence exists to show that the Congress sought to exclude the [Marble's Game Getter Gun] from the removal provision under the 1968 Act." I made this statement because of the fact that the BATF formally determined (in writing) that the Game Getter was mainly a collector's item and was unlikely to be used as a weapon; however, the BATF legal counsel later took the position that it nevertheless could not be removed because the Congress excluded it from the removal provision. My 1996 testimony (see pages 107 to 118) cites the law, legislative history, and documents that there is no legally valid and reliable evidence to support BATF's interpretation. col. 1 SOLUTION #2: "Establishing a 90-day amnesty period to allow persons who may have innocently lost their copies of the registration forms to re-register these firearms. The Congress has authorized such amnesty periods to be established by the Secretary of the Treasury under ' 207(d) of the Gun Control Act of 1968." col. 2 "Furthermore, to address Larson's second solution, if the original registration of a firearm is misplaced, the owner needs only to contact ATF to obtain another copy;. There is no need to re-register, and there is no need to establish an amnesty period as Larson suggests. col. 3 BATF presumes a fact not in evidence, and for which reasonable doubt exists: namely, that BATF has not lost or destroyed its copies of original registrations. It appears that for more than 100,000 NFA firearms, there is just a single document (the original registration) in the NFRTR to prove ownership. As noted in my 1996 testimony (see pages 92 to 95) and 1997 testimony (see page 72), I asked Mr. Gary Schaible if BATF had ever added firearms to the NFRTR because BATF had no record of the original registrationbut the original owner did. He stated: "Yes. I assume that's happened." BATF's conclusion is premature, since it appears that BATF has lost or destroyed original registrations. In a "Response to letter from Senator [James A.] McClure" dated November 29, 1979, bearing symbols LL:JJD:ajw, Philip B. Heyman, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; and Lawrence Lippe, Chief, General Litigation & Legal Advice Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, stated that if an individual had a valid NFA firearm registration document, but that BATF could not find any record of it in the NFRTR, "the only solution would be to declare another amnesty period. The Secretary [of the Treasury] is empowered to do this under existing legislation."