Federal Firearms Regulations

__________________________________________



Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations



White Paper

(Not for public distribution)



Ronald Turk

Associate Deputy Director (Chief Operating Officer)

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)



20 Jan 2017





1

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right

of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



Second Amendment to the United

States Constitution





Executive Summary:



ATF is the only Federal law enforcement agency with a primary mission that directly involves an

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, our actions and policies are appropriately

subjected to intense review and scrutiny. This paper serves to provide the new Administration

and the Bureau multiple options to consider and discuss regarding firearms regulations specific

to ATF. These general thoughts provide potential ways to reduce or modify regulations, or

suggest changes that promote commerce and defend the Second Amendment without

significant negative impact on ATFas mission to fight violent firearms crime and regulate the

firearms industry. This white paper is intended to provide ideas and provoke conversation; it is

not guidance or policy of any kind.



ATFas enforcement and regulatory efforts are focused on reducing violence and increasing

public safety. Positive steps to further reduce gun violence through enforcement or regulation

are extremely important but are not the focus of this paper.



Points for Discussion:



1. New Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) Dealing Exclusively at Gun Shows (or internet):

For over two years representatives within the firearms licensing community have asked

for clarification and/or a decision from ATF regarding new FFL applicants requesting to

conduct business solely at gun shows. ATF has delayed a decision or guidance due to

several concerns including what it means to be aengaged in the businessa of selling

firearms, and ATFas ability to have access to a dealeras records where they may not have

routine business hours. ATF has already recognized FFL activities via the internet

without a classic astorefronta and is considering whether to include gun show only

activities in a similar manner. The marketplace has changed significantly in recent years,

and ATFas guidance to FFLs on these issues has not kept pace with developments in

commerce. Classic abrick and mortara storefronts with an on-hand inventory and set

afront-doora business hours often no longer apply in todayas modern marketplace. A

question remains as to whether ATF should consider simply changing past policy or

initiate a lengthy regulation rule change process. There is ample room for immediate

action on this issue. ATF can simply issue new guidance immediately and adjust past

2



policy to allow for a business to obtain a license with the primary intention of selling

firearms with the transfer occurring at a location other than the businessas physical

premises (whether at guns shows, over the internet, or elsewhere). This practice has in

fact already been taking place, and ATF has provided guidance to FFLs allowing such

activity with regards to internet only sales. Provided the business is established at a

location in full compliance with state and local laws/ordinances and the business is

reasonably inspectable by ATF at an established business location, limited or no actual

sales out the businessas front door should not be an issue.



If a formal regulation rule change is needed for long-term clarification, ATF can start

that process while immediately issuing a policy change to the above practice which

would have no negative impact to public safety. In fact, it would encourage more sales

and business through a licensee, including background checks on sales at gun show

events, and likely increase public safety. Several national gun show promoters prefer to

have licensees at their shows, which also somewhat reduces the so-called agun show

loopholea concerns some have expressed about such venues.



ATF recently issued guidance regarding what it means to be aengaged in the businessa

and indicated that:



aA person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the

location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can

be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts

firearm transactions at gun shows or through the internet.a



Thus, by establishing that persons can be required to obtain a license to sell only at gun

shows, ATF must provide reasonable means for businesses to obtain a license. ATF can

provide guidance to the public for gun show-only dealers similar that which was posted

for internet-only firearms dealers. There is no apparent downside to such a proposal,

and in fact public safety is enhanced.



2. Armor Piercing Ammunition: ATF has regulatory authority to classify what is and is not

armor piercing (AP) ammunition. Several major ammunition manufacturing companies

have had requests pending for years to produce AP ammunition (AP ammo or ammo)

which is not intended for use in a handgun and potentially lawful under Federal law. In

2014, ATF proposed a framework that would have provided a transparent and fair

review process for these applications, and would have resulted in the approval of many

of the long-pending requests. The framework, however, also would have withdrawn the

5.56 agreen tipa AP ammo exemption that has existed since 1986. The withdrawal of

the exemption created controversy that ultimately stalled all AP ammo classification

decisions. Since that time, ATF has been asked to hold off on any AP ammo

3



determinations. Continued inaction on these requests poses significant litigation and

reputational risks to ATF. ATF can readily mitigate these risks by using the criteria

established in the framework to process and approve many of the applications, while

leaving the 5.56 agreen tipa AP ammunition exemption intact. Moving forward with

approval of these applications is consistent with the statutory goal of protecting the

public and law enforcement because, consistent with the statutory exemption, the

projectiles involved are not associated with criminal use, but instead are clearly

designed and intended for hunting and sporting purposes (the projectiles/calibers at

issue will generally penetrate body armor regardless of whether AP-classified metals are

used in the manufacturing process). If decisional restrictions were removed, ATF could

readily apply drafted standards for reviewing AP ammo requests while leaving the 5.56

agreen tipa AP ammo exemption intact. Many of the industriesa pending requests could

be decided in a timely manner, meeting both statutory requirements and safety

concerns within the law.



3. Re-importation of Certain Department of Defense Surplus Firearms from Foreign

Countries: The State Department and ATF have worked over the past several years with

the Administration on requests for the importation of U.S. origin military firearms,

ammunition, and parts that were once sent overseas to support allies. There are

surplus rifles, pistols, ammunition, and other importable U.S. origin Curio and Relic

(C&R) defense articles (including M1 Garand and Carbine rifles) and pistols (M1911)

overseas awaiting importation authority. There is no clear public safety reason why

taxpayer-funded US-origin C&R defense articles should be denied re-importation to the

American public, while many non-U.S.- origin C&R items are approved. Additionally,

these items do not represent any discernable public safety concern, as demand lies with

collectors of vintage military firearms. Importation and sale through licensed dealers

would effectively regulate the lawful transfer of these firearms through a licensee and a

background check. Joint effort from the Administration, State Department, and ATF

could easily reverse past decisions and allow for the safe and legal importation and sale

of these historical and collectible items. Many M1 Garand rifles have been approved for

importation in the past, setting precedence for this to occur. The more recent denials

were in part due to perceived potential that they may be used in crimes, for which there

is little, if any, evidence for such a concern.



4. Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 922(o): Current law precludes FFLs who

are registered Special Occupational Taxpayers (FFL/SOT) from transferring machineguns

manufactured post-1986 unless they are for export or for law enforcement/government

use; and there is no provision for the transfer from one FFL/SOT to another. This is

somewhat detrimental to FFL/SOTs operating within the small, but useful, Department

of Defense-supported industry and theatrical armorer community. One option, if

supported by the Department of Justice (DOJ), would be to re-institute ATFas ability to

4



provide variances to licensees, as ATF has done in the past, that would adequately

provide form transfers within defense industry FFLs and avoid a requirement to change

the statute. Use of variances in a consistent and fair process within the limited DoD-

supported FFL/SOT community would be viewed favorably by the industry and have no

impact on public safety.



5. Firearm Arm or Stabilizing Brace: Manufacturers have produced an arm brace or

stabilizing brace which is designed to strap a handgun to a forearm to allow a disabled

shooter to fire the firearm. ATF determined that the brace was not a stock, and

therefore its attachment to a handgun did not constitute the making of a short-barreled

rifle or aany other firearma under the National Firearms Act (NFA). (NFA classification

subjects the product to a tax and registration requirement.) In the determination letter,

however, ATF indicated that if the brace was held to the shoulder and used as a stock,

such use would constitute a aredesigna that would result in classification of the

brace/handgun combination as an NFA firearm (i.e., the ausea would be a aredesigna

and making of a short-barreled rifle). ATF has not made another NFA determination

where a shooteras use alone was deemed be a aredesigna of the product/firearm

resulting in an NFA classification. This ruling has caused confusion and concern among

firearm manufacturers, dealers, and consumers about the extent to which unintended

use of a product may be a basis for NFA classification. To mitigate this confusion and

concern, ATF could amend the determination letter to remove the language indicating

that simple use of a product for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturer a

without additional proof or redesign a may result in re-classification as an NFA weapon.

While many at ATF are concerned about manufacturing processes continuing to push

the boundaries between a Gun Control Act (GCA) and an NFA firearm, ATF has a

relatively consistent history of what crosses the line between GCA and NFA firearms

with which to draw from, and still maintains the ability to exercise good judgement with

future requests based upon the firearmas individual characteristics.



6. Reissue a New Sporting Purpose Study: Since the sunset of the Assault Weapons ban in

2004, the use of AR-15s, AK-style, and similar rifles now commonly referred to as

amodern sporting riflesa has increased exponentially in sport shooting. These firearm

types are now standard for hunting activities. ATF could re-examine its almost 20-yearold study to bring it up to date with the sport shooting landscape of today, which is

vastly different than what it was years ago. Action shooting sports and organizations

such as 3 Gun and the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) have also

drastically expanded in recent years. Restriction on imports serves questionable public

safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture

and ownership in the United States. Low cost foreign made firearms are also still

imported and converted into anon-sportinga configurations. These restrictions have

placed many limitations on importers, while at the same time imposing a heavy

5



workload on ATFas Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division. ATFas Imports Branch

also possesses a list of firearms approved for import but has not made this list public.

Lists such as this can be made available to the public so that the importing community

does not have to guess as to what the standard for importation is. Many concerns from

the firearms industry could be re-examined through the publication of a new Sporting

Purpose Study along with an updated Imports Branch Guide.



7. Creation of a Database of Agency Rulings: ATF lacks a consistent internal database to

maintain and readily access private letters and ruling. The public also has no direct

access to public rulings in a manageable format. The inability to access these rulings can

create inconsistent agency interpretations of agency guidance. ATF can create a

retrievable database for internal use that includes access by the public for open rulings.



8. Silencers: Current Federal law requires ATF to regulate silencers under the NFA. This

requires a Federal tax payment of $200 for transfers, ATF approval, and entry of the

silencer into a national NFA database. In the past several years, opinions about silencers

have changed across the United States. Their use to reduce noise at shooting ranges

and applications within the sporting and hunting industry are now well recognized. At

present, 42 states generally allow silencers to be used for sporting purposes. The wide

acceptance of silencers and corresponding changes in state laws have created

substantial demand across the country. This surge in demand has caused ATF to have a

significant backlog on silencer applications. ATFas processing time is now approximately

8 months. ATF has devoted substantial resources in attempts to reduce processing

times, spending over $1 million annually in overtime and temporary duty expenses, and

dedicating over 33 additional full-time and contract positions since 2011 to support NFA

processing. Despite these efforts, NFA processing times are widely viewed by applicants

and the industry as far too long, resulting in numerous complaints to Congress. Since

silencers account for the vast majority of NFA applications, the most direct way to

reduce processing times is to reduce the number of silencer applications. In light of the

expanding demand and acceptance of silencers, however, that volume is unlikely to

diminish unless they are removed from the NFA. While DOJ and ATF have historically

not supported removal of items from the NFA, the change in public acceptance of

silencers arguably indicates that the reason for their inclusion in the NFA is archaic and

historical reluctance to removing them from the NFA should be reevaluated. ATFas

experience with the criminal use of silencers also supports reassessing their inclusion in

the NFA. On average in the past 10 years, ATF has only recommended 44 defendants a

year for prosecution on silencer-related violations; of those, only approximately 6 of the

defendants had prior felony convictions. Moreover, consistent with this low number of

prosecution referrals, silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings. Given the lack

of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not

6



be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating NFA classification, and should be

considered for reclassification under the GCA.



If such a change were to be considered, a revision in the definition of a silencer would

be important. The current definition of a silencer extends to aany combination of

[silencer] parts,a as well as aany part intended only for use ina a silencer. Compared to

the definition of a firearm, which specifies the frame or receiver is the key regulated

part, any individual silencer part is generally regulated just as if it were a completed

silencer. Revising the definition could eliminate many of the current issues encountered

by silencer manufacturers and their parts suppliers. Specifically, clarifying when a part

or combination of parts meets a minimum threshold requiring serialization would be

useful.



9. Firearms Industry Proposals to Allow for Interstate Sale of Firearms at Gun Shows: 18

U.S.C. 923(j) and supporting regulations prohibit FFLs from conducting firearms sales

outside the state in which they are licensed and reside. Many FFLs would like to be able

to travel to other states to venues like a gun show and conduct business. ATF currently

allows an FFL to travel to another state, display firearms for sale and take orders, but

not to transfer firearms on-site (this must take place back at the FFLas business location

in their home state, and only to a resident of their home state). Similarly, FFLs can

transfer firearms out of state to another licensee under an aadvance consignmenta

before the gun show to the out-of-state licensee in a somewhat convoluted process

where the traveling/transferring FFL is no longer making the sale. ATF and DOJ have

historically opposed removal of the statutory restriction on direct interstate firearm

sales by FFLs. Further discussion would be beneficial. A change that could allow FFLs to

operate at out-of-state gun shows (where also allowed by individual state laws) would

have no detrimental effect on public safety and still provide ATF a means to trace

firearms. It would also be viewed favorably by the broader firearms community. Since

an FFL has a license, maintains records, and conducts background checks for sales,

provided they are in compliance with State and local laws, there is no apparent harm or

risk to public safety in allowing them to do so, but not for the current statute and

interpretation requiring in-state only sales. Sales would be documented and traceable,

and a background check would be completed.



10. Destructive Devices: The current definitions for destructive devices under both the NFA

(26 U.S.C., 5845(f)) and the GCA (18 U.S.C., 921(a)(4)), and applicable controls, do not

differentiate between destructive device launchers and destructive device munitions.

Applicable regulatory and statutory controls under the GCA and NFA are focused on

multi-use objects, such as typical long guns or machine guns, not single-use, expendable

munitions which are also subject to the Safe Explosives Act. The customer base for

destructive device munitions is very limitedathe U.S. DoD, foreign governments as

7



approved by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) under current export

policy, and small numbers of other destructive device launcher and/or munitions

manufacturers for use in research, testing, or assistance in United States Government

/foreign contract fulfillment. In addition, the cost of munitions production runs, safety,

and contract fulfillment requirements such as applicable DoD marking requirements

necessitate, at a minimum, different standards for marking munitions than are possible

for launchers. This includes marking by lot numbers and having multiple dispositions

against a single lot number. There are several different ways to revise applicable

controls to help solve these issues, as being currently discussed by ATF and destructive

device munitions industry members. ATF should continue to discuss these issues with

leadership and the industry to explore changes that would be useful to the defense

munitions industry and have discernable impact on public safety or ATFas ability to

regulate them.



11. Demand Letter 2 (DL 2): An ATF regulation currently provides that all FFLs that have

had 10 or more guns with a time-to-crime of 3 years or less traced to them in the

previous year must provide ATF with copies of limited information from used firearms

they acquired in that previous year. This equates to limited auseda or agray marketa gun

information (no purchaser information is directly stored by ATF, only gun information)

that can be used to expand the success rate of traces for secondary market firearms.

This information can be useful to further crime gun trace capabilities by creating a

pointer to allow for a more current firearms trace to a secondary purchaser. ATF

originally set the threshold for DL2 reporting at 25 firearms, but later reduced that

number to 10 firearms. ATF is currently re-examining the program and anticipates a

change to the number (somewhere in the vicinity of 15 or more) based on trend and

data analysis. Some have argued that DL 2 creates a burden on firearms dealers to

provide ATF information on used firearms that may become, but are not necessarily,

crime guns. An increase in the firearms requirement above 10 would likely have a

positive impact on the firearms industry and still meet program objectives. ATF should

continue to examine data to determine where the appropriate number of firearms lies

to best manage this program.



12. Demand Letter 3 (DL 3): Via regulation ATF currently requires FFLs in several southwest

border states to record and submit multiple sales records for certain semi-automatic

rifles capable of shooting with a detached magazine (although not defined as such by

law or regulation, this applies to the sale of more than one rifle commonly referred to as

amodern sporting rifles,a sold to the same person at the same time). This requirement

came into effect several years ago in an attempt to curb the flow of rifles from

commerce to the criminal element via illegal firearms trafficking into Mexico and South

America. There are examples where this regulation has proven effective and may

provide a deterrent effect. Over the past 5 years, ATF has over 40,000 multiple sales

8



reports involving over 90,000 rifles; opened over 300 investigations, and recommended

approximately 374 defendants for prosecution. DL 3 places some burden on the

firearms industry via reporting requirements. The elimination of DL 3 could have a

detrimental effect on ATFas criminal enforcement mission based on the numbers of

investigations and defendants seen to date, but can be further discussed regarding

utility and impact.



13. Pending ATF Regulation Regarding FFL Records Retention (20 years): ATF has a

regulation pending at DOJ to increase the requirements for FFLs to retain records

indefinitely. The current standard is 20 years, and records older than 20 years can be

destroyed. The intent of the change from 20 years to indefinite retention is to provide

access to records for firearms traces over longer periods of time. However, many argue

that crime guns are not frequently recovered with times to crimes from purchases over

20 years old. Also, older firearms possessed by criminals frequently transfer hands

several times and a trace will often not lead to the criminal after so much time has

passed. ATF has averaged approximately 1,200 failed traces a year over the past 5 years

due to records destruction, accounting for less than one half of one percent of traces

conducted nationally each year. While such an extension is arguably a viable law

enforcement intelligence tool, much of the firearms industry is opposed to such a

change and a closer review of this proposal could be beneficial.



14. Expanding Permissive Use of NICS Checks by FFL Holders: Standard pre-employment

background checks frequently do not reveal that a person is firearms-disabled. Other

than requiring potential new-hires to purchase a firearm, licensees, in particular large

retailers, are frequently unable to determine that an employee cannot be involved in

firearms operations. Retailers would appreciate the ability to run a NICS check on

current employees or potential new hires to ascertain whether they can legally fulfill

their job requirements. A key aspect of this proposal is that it would be entirely

elective; if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), ATF and others all concurred with

this slight expansion of the use of NICS, there would be no mandate that licensees

perform a NICS check on all employees. Keeping the expansion of the system limited to

elective employee checks will prevent any significant increase in cost to the FBI or ATF

(in terms of running background checks or expanding regulatory enforcement), while it

will enable FFLs to increase their compliance with existing regulations and help ensure

firearms-disabled personnel do not have easy access to firearms. Businesses could also

be required to certify that permissive NICS checks were only used on impacted

employees or face sanctions for misuse of the system.



15. Need for an ATF Confirmed Director: Since moving from the Department of Treasury to

the DOJ in 2003, ATF has had only one Senate-confirmed Director. The agency needs a

presidentially nominated, Senate-confirmed Director who has the support and backing

9



of the Administration to lead ATF. This will enable the agency to be fully in sync with

leadership, and maximize the agencyas potential regarding priorities, budgets, and

support.



16. Old Regulations Under Review for Possible Removal or Amendment: Below is a list of

the firearms and explosives regulations that are currently under review. They are likely

no longer applicable (or portions of which are no longer applicable), and may be

removed as part of a final rule to remove expired regulations. 1



a. 478.40 a Assault Weapons ban

b. 478.40a a prohibition language for assault weapons

c. 478.57(b) and (c) a assault weapons and large capacity magazines

d. 478.92 (portions) a AP ammo and large capacity magazines

e. 478.116 (portions) a importing large capacity magazines

f. 478.119 a importing large capacity magazines and feeding devices (belts,

drums, stripsa|)

g. 478.132 a records keeping for large capacity feeding devices sold to law

enforcement

h. 478.153 a request for large capacity magazines and feeding devices for

manufacturer testing

i. 478.171 (portions) a exporting AP ammo and semi auto assault weapons

j. 479.32(a) and (c) a reduced importer/manufacturer tax rate 1988; short taxable year

standards

k. 555.11 (portions) a obsolete dates; commerce in explosives

l. 555.27 (portions) - obsolete dates; explosives background checks

m. 555.33 (portions) - obsolete dates; licensees and permittees general explosives

n. 555.41 (portions) - obsolete dates; licenses and permits general explosives

o. 555.45 (portions) - obsolete dates; licenses and permits general explosives

p. 555.49 (portions) - obsolete dates; issuance of licenses and permits

q. 555.51 (portions) - obsolete dates; duration of licenses and permits

r. 555.57 (portions) - obsolete dates; change of control, RPas and employees

s. 555.102 (portions) - obsolete dates; authorized operations by permittees

t. 555.103 (portions) - obsolete dates; transactions between licensees and permittees

u. 555.105 (portions) - obsolete dates; distribution to non licensees and non

permittees

v. 555.125 (portions) - obsolete dates; records maintained by permittees

w. 555.126 (portions) - obsolete dates; transaction records

x. 555.142 (portions) - obsolete dates; relief from disabilities

y. 555.201 (portions) - obsolete dates; storage

z. 555.224 (portions) - obsolete dates; table of distances



1

This list was produced by ATFas Enforcement Programs and Services Directorate

10



Conclusions:



There are many regulatory changes or modifications that can be made by or through ATF that

would have an immediate, positive impact on commerce and industry without significantly

hindering ATFs mission or adversely affecting public safety. There are also areas where

adjustments to policy or processes could improve ATF operations. Alleviating some of these

concerns would continue to support ATFas relationships across the firearms and sporting

industry, and allow ATF to further focus precious personnel and resources on the mission to

combat gun violence.



In addition to these points of discussion, it is vital for ATF to find resources to refresh aging

technology and systems that support law enforcement and the firearms industry. Functionality

at ATFas Martinsburg facility and other areas has been severely hampered by outdated

technology and systems that negatively impact ATFas ability to provide services and

information.



Note: The opinions expressed within this white paper are not those of the ATF; they are merely the ideas

and opinions of this writer. They are provided for internal use within ATF and DOJ and not intended to be

public. They are also general thoughts that cannot be taken as exacting language regarding policy or

quotable specifics. Additional specific details can be provided to further these general discussions.



The men and women of ATF are overwhelmingly a fantastic group of hard working civil servants who look to

reduce violent crime and ensure public safety. The focus on combating gun violence is key. Fairly regulating

the firearms and explosives industries is also important. As the firearms conversations take place over the

next few months and years, this paper is offered to provide informal insight on potential productive ways to

limit regulation and continue to protect our Second Amendment freedoms, while focusing on ATFas mission to

protect our nation.









X

Ro n ald Tu rk

11

