January 31, 1998

Nereida W. Levine
Chief, National Firearms Act Branch 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 
650 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20226

Dear Chief Levine:

I am writing this letter to request from you a written statement
from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) regarding
the legal status of four National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms that
I currently own, which apparently were illegally registered years
before I acquired them, as well as the BATF's policy regarding the
legal status of other NFA firearms that may have been illegally
registered without the knowledge of their current owners.

I discussed these issues at some length in my 1997 testimony before
the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government
Appropriations, to the point of specifically identifying each
firearm by serial number and citing or providing relevant
documentation.

It is perplexing that BATF did not address any of these issues in
its recent internal investigation that is based on my testimony. I
also find it difficult to imagine that you, as Chief of the
National Firearms Act Branch, would not be concerned about the
accuracy and integrity of the National Firearms Registration and
Transfer Record (NFRTR). After all, the only documentation that any
lawful owner of an NFA firearm has to justify the legality of its
possession, are documents issued by the NFA branch.

What if NFA firearms were registered illegally? What if BATF's
records are inaccurate, or missing? What if BATF chooses to
confiscate an affected NFA firearm even though its current owner
acquired the firearm lawfully, BATF approved the transaction, and
the current owner had no knowledge of past defects in the history
of the firearm which BATF later interprets as transforming the
firearm into illegal contraband? Can the lawful owner have faith in
the "title" to his or her firearm, and rely totally upon the
documentation of an approved transaction by the BATF as evidence
that he or she lawfully possesses the firearm? Apparently not.

My concerns are not hypothetical, theoretical, or a "fishing
expedition" to try and create problems that do not exist, because
BATF has already confiscated at least one NFA firearm after
alleging it was illegally registered at some time in the past,
though without knowledge by its owner and after BATF had approved
the transfer of its ownership.

It is a fact that BATF confiscated an NFA firearm from Noel
Napollili of Fairbanks, Alaska, on the grounds that it had been
illegally registered sometime in the past by unknown persons,
although BATF issued Mr. Napollili a lawful registration document
for the firearm when he purchased it for $2,500 in 1985. When BATF
moved to seize the firearm in 1993, Mr. Napollili filed a lawsuit
to demand its return, but dropped the lawsuit before the case could
be brought to trial. James H. Jeffries III, Esq., of Greensboro,
North Carolina, who acted as Mr. Napollili's attorney, told me that
the case was dropped because Mr. Napollili's wife was afraid that
BATF agents were going to kill Mr. Napollili in retaliation for the
lawsuit. Since this period was during the unpleasantness at Ruby
Ridge and Waco, Mr. Napollili's wife's concerns may be
understandable, and probably any person who is married can
understand the need for domestic tranquility. In any case, Mr.
Napollili, as far as he knew, lawfully purchased the firearm and
was issued a registration document by BATF in 1985. Suddenly, in
1992, BATF alleged there was absolutely no record that the firearm
had ever been registered, even though BATF had issued a
registration document entitling Mr. Napollili to lawfully possess
the firearm. I included a copy of the Napollili case with my April
8, 1997, testimony, and at that time the Subcommittee placed it
into its permanent files.

The Tax Code and the NFA each prohibit disclosure of the past
history of NFA firearms because such information or documents are
considered to be "tax return" information, so the average person
who owns an NFA firearm cannot learn anything about its
provenance--legal or otherwise. My case is rather unusual because
through the humble virtue of diligence I learned the history of
certain firearms that I own. The average person has no means of
questioning a forfeiture action by BATF based on the provenance of
a firearm, or any protection against BATF flat out lying.

I am the current lawful owner of four smooth bore H&R Handy-Guns
bearing serial numbers 5592, 29691, 50885, and 53637, as evidenced
by my possession of a BATF issued-and-approved Form 4 for each
firearm. These are the only documents which evidence my lawful
ownership of these firearms, and BATF is the only entity which can
issue them. I obtained some documents, or copies of documents,
regarding past transfers of these firearms from the former owners,
mainly because they respected my dedication as a firearms
researcher and thought the documents would be an interesting
addition to my collection.

It was not until 1996, under various Freedom of Information (FOIA)
requests, that I was able to learn from BATF the dates of original
registration of the firearms that I own. On the basis of this
information supplied by BATF, I believe that the four firearms
identified above were illegally registered by BATF and that BATF
may attempt to confiscate them as contraband at some unknown time
in the future for that reason. Since the accuracy and integrity of
BATF's firearm registration records is unknown, the situation that
I have identified is of potential concern to tens of thousands of
people who probably believe they legally own firearms after
receiving approved registration and transfer forms from the BATF.
The apparently illegal registrations of my firearms on Form 3 or
Form 4 considerably widens the potential for other illegal
registrations, because these are very commonly used in ordinary
transactions to transfer title of ownership.

A group of smooth bore H&R Handy-Guns bearing serial numbers 5592,
43950, 50885, 52551, and 53637 were transferred by and from H&R to
Peter Dowd in 1986, using a Form 3 transfer form approved by BATF.
Yet, these were not "new" firearms; these guns had existed since at
least 1934. As my 1997 testimony documents, H&R advised BATF in
writing on November 27, 1953, that "H & R has not manufactured
Handy-Gun since the [NFA] law was passed in 1934." and later states
that "in the last two (2) years, all our Handy Guns in .410 gauge
and 28 "were exported to Canada." Serial numbers 5592 and 50885 are
new in their original boxes, and former H&R employees have advised
me that H&R had possessed these guns for many years. Yet, under a
FOIA request, BATF stated that three of these guns--which I bought
during the early 1990s--were originally registered by BATF on April
16, 1986, the date of application for their transfer ny H&R;
indeed, this is the same date listed on the Form 3 transfer from
H&R to Mr. Dowd.

A manufacturer is supposed to register unregistered NFA firearms it
has manufactured on Form 2, and Form 3 is supposed to be only used
to transfer the ownership of NFA firearms that are already
registered. Registering an NFA firearm on Form 3 seems to be a
clever way to register an unregisterable NFA firearm, because it
places the firearm into the NFRTR, and raises questions about the
accuracy and integrity of the NFRTR--and the conduct of whomever
approved the transfers (in this particular case, the Form 3
transfers were approved by Gary Schaible via facsimile signature,
which may also raise questions about who has access to the
signature facsimile machine). As you may know, the U.S. Supreme
Court prohibited the registration of such unregistered NFA firearms
on April 5, 1971. Consequently, it appears that BATF illegally
registered the five firearms described above, three of which I
lawfully purchased and was issued lawful registrations by BATF.

The other smooth bore H&R Handy-Gun in question that I own is a
rare 28 gauge bearing serial number 29691. I purchased it from the
estate of its former owner, whose executrix gave me the old
registration (a Form 4 that was approved by BATF on March 23,
1972). According to BATF, this firearm was originally registered on
March 2, 1972, more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court
prohibited such a registration. Finally, the old Form 4 that I
possess bears the signature of the person who approved its transfer
to its now-deceased former owner: the Director of the then-Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms Division, Rex D. Davis. Based on examples of
Mr. Davis' signature on official BATF letters in an unrelated court
case during the same time period, it appears that Mr. Davis is not
the person who signed this Form 4. Thus, in addition to the firearm
being illegally registered by BATF, it appears that someone within
BATF forged Mr. Davis' signature. Both of the events that I have
documented--an apparently illegal registration, and an apparently
forged transfer document--definitely are violations of the NFA.

I respectfully request that you, as Chief of the NFA Branch, state
in writing to me what BATF's policy is regarding the legal status
of these four smooth bore H&R Handy-Guns and, specifically, whether
BATF regards them as lawfully owned by me or as unlawful contraband
because they were apparently illegally registered or illegally
transferred (or both) without my knowledge by BATF years before I
purchased them. This is a law enforcement, compliance, regulatory,
and policy issue that potentially affects me as well as thousands
of other persons who have lawfully purchased NFA firearms as
evidenced by BATF's approvals of these transactions.

I am going to let personal concerns involving selected NFA firearms
that I legally purchased speak, in part, as well, for the many
people who have contacted me over the years about similar concerns.
These people are genuinely terrified of BATF as an arm of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and as a law enforcement agency
that has in the past over-reacted in situations in which human life
was apparently unnecessarily lost. No person should fear being
victimized by the unlawful actions of a federal law enforcement
agency.

If you are unable or unwilling to provide me with a written
official answer, and policy position, addressing these issues, I am
going to take action against you personally regarding your conduct
in the performance of your official duties, through appropriate
channels.


Very truly yours,


Eric M. Larson
P.O. Box 5497
Takoma Park, Maryland 20913


cc:  Ms. Carol Bergen, Office of the Inspector General, Department
     of the Treasury

     The Honorable Jim Kolbe, Chairman Subcommittee on Treasury,
     Postal Service and General Government

     The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman House Committee on
     Government Reform and Oversight

     The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman Senate Committee on the
     Judiciary