Title II of the GCA, also termed the National Firearms Act of 1968, revised and re-codified the NFA, resulting in:

1.) tightened controls on NFA firearms and devices; particularly in the import restrictions for NFA items;

2.) the inclusion of “destructive devices;”

3.) the codification of various rulings into a statutory definition of “any other weapon;”

4.) the inclusion of “frame or receiver” of a firearm under the definition of a
machinegun; and

5.) a provision which authorized the administrative removal of any firearm from the NFA, except a machine gun or destructive device, that was determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be mainly a “collector’s item” and not likely to be used as a weapon.

26 U.S.C. § 5845. The GCA, in remaining true to the original intent behind the NFA, limited firearms
thought to be used mainly by criminals by requiring registration of the firearms and using prohibitive taxes to discourage their manufacture, distribution, and ownership. This was a comprehensive strategy then, and remains so today.

The GCA also increased the penalty for possessing an unregistered NFA firearm to two years and/or ten thousand dollars.

S. Rep. NO. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 25 (1967). The 2007 DOJ-OIG report declares, “Possessing an
unregistered NFA weapon or one that is registered to someone else is punishable by a $250,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment. The NFA weapon is subject to forfeiture, and if convicted of a criminal violation of the NFA the possessor will be prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms.” U.S. Department of the Justice, Office of Inspector General, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, I-2007-006, at 3-4 (June 2007), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DOJ-OIG2007NFRTRreport.pdf.

Furthermore, the Congress, aware of the Supreme Court’s decision in Haynes v. United States, as well as other cases, resolved the conflict by: (1) prohibiting any information required to comply with the NFA to be used against a registrant or applicant “in a criminal proceeding with respect to a prior or concurrent violation of the law;” (2) establishing an amnesty period, to allow persons to register unregistered NFA firearms with full immunity from prosecution, although such immunity did not apply to making false statements;

82 Stat. 1235, § 207(b), (d); Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) (holding that the registration of NFA weapons would likely incriminate those individuals registering unregistered NFA); Grosso v. United States, 390 U.S. 62 (1968); Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968).

and, (3) prohibiting the release of any information about the registration status or ownership of any NFA firearm.

1968 NFA Amnesty

The GCA required ATF to establish a 30-day amnesty period beginning on the second day of the first month after its enactment on October 22, 1968; consequently, the amnesty was held from November 2, 1968, to December 1, 1968. See 82 Stat. 1235, § 207(b), (d).

An ancillary and troubling issue is the fact that ATF created an unofficial program to allow the registration of thousands of unregistered NFA firearms after the 1968 amnesty expired, in violation of its own published regulations at the time.

26 C.F.R. § 179.120 (1969), available at http://blog.princelaw.com/assets/2008/1/9/1969-CFR-ATFamnesty-regs.pdf; U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, Hearing on S. 914, A Bill to Protect Owners’ Constitutional Rights, Civil Liberties, and Rights to Privacy, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 63 (Washington, GPO, 1984), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DolaNFAamend.pdf.

BATFE published regulations in 26 C.F.R., Section 179.120, entitled "Registration of Firearms", revised as of January 1, 1969, that described procedures for registering unregistered NFA firearms during the 1968 amnesty period.47 The regulation states, in part: "No firearm may be registered by a person unlawfully in possession of the firearm after December 1, 1968, except that the Director, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, may establish periods of amnesty, not to exceed ninety (90) days in the case of any single period with such immunity from liability as the
Director determines will contribute to the purposes of this part."48 Paragraph (e) further
stipulates that "A firearm not identified as registered by this part shall not be registered."
Notwithstanding these limitations, in a document entitled "Amnesty Guidelines" and
dated April 16, 1969, BATFE established a program which allowed the registration of
unregistered NFA firearms.

A copy of the original document is available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Work_Papers_E.pdf, at 4-5; however, the reproduction is of relatively low quality, and a True Copy was submitted in a 2001
Congressional statement, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/2001statement.pdf 19-20, which also includes a True Copy of an ATF memorandum dated March 4, 1975, confirming that the post-amnesty registration program had been implemented but was later discontinued.
In 1998, the Treasury Department Inspector General investigated these “post amnesty” registrations and concluded that ATF may not have followed proper procedures, because ATF failed to publish a notice in the Federal Register as required by law, which casts some legal questions upon the legitimacy of the registrations.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Special Report on Allegations Concerning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm’s Registration and Record keeping of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records, OIG-99-009, at 1, 13 (Washington, Oct. 26, 1998), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-009-1998.pdf. If the legitimacy of these registrations comes into question, it should be held against the BATFE, not the individual, since the individual followed the procedures established by the BATFE. Furthermore, the loss of such a firearm would be a monumental economic loss to the registrant or individual to whom the firearm has been transferred.

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA] of 1986

The passage of FOPA prohibited the possession of machineguns that were not legally possessed prior to its enactment on May 19, 1986. See 100 Stat. 452, § 102(9); codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1) (1986).

The effect was to freeze the number of machineguns that could be legally owned by private citizens. While previously contending that FOPA nullified the amnesty provision for machineguns, the BATFE has recently changed their position.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, Treasury Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002, Part 3, Statements of Members of Congress and Other Interest Individuals and Organizations, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., at 10 (Washington, GPO, 2002), available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/2001statement.pdf; The BATFE has now taken the position that they have the power to authorize a new amnesty, but choose not to do so, so as not to “jeopardize pending ATF investigations and prosecutions of NFA violations.” BATFE, ATF National Firearms Act Handbook, at 23 (June 2007), available at http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/nfa_handbook/index.htm.

Moreover, given that the number of NFA registered firearms, post-amnesty, has continued to rise, one can only conclude that either the BATFE has continued to allow a BATFE-discretionary amnesty, which is contrary to law,

90 P. L. 618; 82 Stat. 1235, § 207(d); Eric Larson, Errors in the National Firearms Registration and
Transfer Record: A New Amnesty Period May be Required to Correct Them, prepared for the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Services, and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, at 41-139(Apr. 8, 1997), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/1997testimony.pdf. This is supported by the Treasury Department Inspector General’s statement that the BATFE, “may have failed to follow procedures by failing to publish [notice of ATF’s years-long extension of the 1968 Amnesty] in the Federal Registrar, as required by the Gun Control Act of 1968.” U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, Treasury Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002, Part 3, Statements of Members of Congress and Other Interest Individuals and Organizations, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., at 9 (Washington, GPO, 2002), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/2001statement.pdf.

or, that which is more likely, the BATFE has been adding lost/destroyed firearm
registrations back into the NFRTR, because it assumes the NFRTR to be in error.

U.S. Department of the Justice, Office of Inspector General, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives’ National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, I-2007-006, at 31 (June 2007),
available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DOJ-OIG2007NFRTRreport.pdf. The lack of an official.

The confluence of the NFA, CGA, and FOPA has resulted in a series of procedures to register a NFA weapon, as well as, penalties for the failure to do so. A private citizen, who is not otherwise prohibited by law, may acquire an NFA weapon in several ways: 1.) a registered owner of an NFA firearm may apply for ATF approval to transfer the firearm to another person residing in the same state or to a FFL in another state, or an individual may purchase an NFA firearm from a FFL; See 26 U.S.C. § 5811.

2.) an individual may apply to the BATFE for approval to make and register an NFA firearm (except machine gun); See 26 U.S.C. § 5822.

or 3.) an individual may inherit a lawfully registered NFA firearm. See 26 U.S.C. § 5811

The process for registering a NFA firearm is as follows: 1.) the applicant must file
an application, in duplicate, with the BATFE; 2.) if not a Special Occupational Taxpayer
licensed to manufacture NFA firearms or devices, pay the two-hundred dollar tax; 3.) if
the transferee is an individual, thus exempting corporations and trusts, he/she must
submit fingerprints and photographs; and, 4.) the signature of the chief law enforcement
officer or other person of prominence, determined by the BATFE. see Id.; 26 U.S.C. § 5812. The fee for transferring an AOW is $5. § 5811.

The penalty for violating the NFA, specifically receiving, possessing, or transferring an unregistered NFA firearm, is a fine of up to two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars, imprisonment for up to ten years, and forfeiture of the firearm and any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft used to conceal or convey the firearm. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d),(j); 26 U.S.C.S. § 5872; 49 U.S.C. §§ 781-788.

The NFRTR has been the source of debate in the Congress since the late 1970’s, and federally licensed NFA dealers have “suspected” for years that the NFRTR records were incomplete and lacked reliability, because their firearms inventories were not accurately reflected in the NFRTR-generated reports, which came to light when the BATFE performed compliance inspections.

Introductory Statement of Dan Shea, editor of Small Arms Review, leading an article by Eric M. Larson,
Voluntary Amnesty Registrations Under the National Firearms Act: Current Prospects and Some History From 1934 to 1968, SMALL ARMS REVIEW, May 2000, at 41.

These inaccuracies have caused some lawful possessors of NFA weapons to fear, “Some overzealous ATF agent will attempt to make a Registry error into a SWAT visit.”

The Inaccuracy of the NFRTR

Prior to the enactment of the NFA, Karl T. Frederick, then President of the National Rifle Association, voiced concerns over the possibility of citizens who lawfully registered their NFA weapons being turned into criminals for losing their registration papers.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 9066, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 57
(Washington, GPO, 1934), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/NFA-1934house.pdf.
“[A]s a matter of human experience, the owner of a gun is going to lose papers, they are going to get
mislaid, they are going to get burned up, if he cannot turn them up when required to do so he is liable to go to jail. I think there ought to be a simple method of obtaining a copy of that paper from the authorities with whom the original was filed. . . . If not, in the actual operation, you are going to create criminals.”

While the issue of accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the NFRTR only came to the Congress’ attention in 1979, the BATFE was well aware, in December of 1968, that the 1968 Amnesty was a complete disaster.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Criminal Div., Memorandum: Response to letter from Senator McClure, by Philip
B. Heymann and Lawrence Lippe, at 2-3 (Nov. 29, 1979), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DOJamnestyMemo1979.pdf.

In 1979, then-Senator Jim McClure, on behalf of the NRA Firearms Museum, contacted the BATFE over its determination to bring a forfeiture action against the Museum, alleging seven weapons were illegally possessed, since they were not found in the registry.

While the BATFE had already begun a forfeiture action, United States v. ?

Seven Miscellaneous Firearms, the district court, disconcerted by the allegations of the inaccuracy, found none of the weapons to be firearms that required registration.

At the same time, the Congress heard testimony that the BATFE alleged J. Curtis Earl, a federally licensed NFA dealer, illegally possessed 475 unregistered firearms.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Oversight Hearings on Bureau Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 39 (Washington GPO 1979), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/1979_Hearing_Excerpts.pdf.

While ATF had consulted microfiche copies of NFRTR records, the attorney who represented Mr. Earl noted that Mr. Earl, Turned to his file cabinet and began to produce the original records of their registration, and one by one the firearms came off the floor and back onto his racks. At the end, he could show that he had registered every single one of these 475 firearms. ATF’s records were grossly incorrect.

Letter to Ernest S. Istook, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, from David T. Hardy, Esq., dated April 10, 2001, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/BardHard.pdf.

In response to a request by Senator McClure, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice stated that if BATFE determines that “a particular individual or weapon is registered” and BATF finds that its “files are missing,” then “the only solution would be to declare another amnesty period.”

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Memorandum: Response to letter from Senator McClure, by Philip B. Heymann and Lawrence Lippe, Nov. 29, 1979, at 4, available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DOJamnestyMemo1979.pdf.

However, no amnesty period was established in response to the Earl case. In the 1980’s, defense attorneys, in several federal court cases, began requesting, during discovery, internal BATFE memoranda and reports that documented problems regarding the accuracy of the NFRTR.

One of the procured BATFE memoranda, written by the NFA Branch Chief, declared, Our response to inquires on the existence or nonexistence of proper registration of an NFA firearm is the basis for seizure, arrests, prosecution, fines, and imprisonments. Our testimony or certification of 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 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 registrant form and we certified that he had not registered the firearm when, in fact, we had failed to locate his registration in the Record [NFRTR].

NFA Branch Chief memorandum to ATF Assistant Director for Technical and Scientific Services,
Purification and Verification of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, Apr. 3, 1975,
reproduced in Oversight Hearings on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., at 42 (Washington, GPO, 1979), available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/1979_Hearing_Excerpts.pdf.

However, the then-Assistant Director of the BATFE, continued to assert that the inaccuracies had been corrected and that the NFRTR was accurate and reliable for “criminal proceedings.”

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, Status Report: National Firearms Registration and Transfer
Record (NFRTR), by Deron A. Dobbs, July 1, 1981, at 17, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DeronDobbs.pdf.

More disconcerting is the October 1995 “Roll Call” training video of then NFA Branch Chief, Thomas B. Busey, in which Mr. Busey orders BATFE staff to continue to commit perjury when testifying about the NFRTR: “Let me say that when we testify in court, we testify that the database [NFRTR] is 100 percent accurate. That’s what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true.”

BATFE/NFRTR Roll Call Training Video, Oct. 1995, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/rollcall_highlights.mp4 or as text http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/BuseyTranscript.pdf at 20.

Mr. Busey continued, “If our database were absolutely error free, we could simply run the name of individual and his first name, and if it didn’t come up, we could guarantee everyone that that individual doesn’t have a Title II [NFA] weapon registered to him.”

Furthermore, Chief Busey stated that the error rate in the NFRTR was between 49 and 50%, before he became NFA Branch Chief, which means all cases prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm, prior to 1994, had a one in two chance of the legally registered weapon’s record not existing or being discoverable in the NFRTR.

Chief Busey then declared that the current, as of 1995, inaccuracy rate was below 8%, while at the same time the BATFE was attesting to the court that the NFRTR was 100% accurate.

Congressional Hearings/OIG Audits

The Congress has been aware of the problems of the NFRTR since the 1970’s; yet the courts, for the most part, have been relatively uninformed or unaware of such proceedings.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Criminal Div., Memorandum: Response to letter from Senator McClure, by Philip
B. Heymann and Lawrence Lippe, 2-3 (Nov. 29, 1979), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DOJamnestyMemo1979.pdf.

The hearings and testimonies on the NFA, and more specifically the inaccuracy in the NFRTR, are massive, some encompassing more than 900 pages; thus, the hearings will be broken down by date, and only the most pertinent information will be discussed, because an article could be written on each hearing. These hearings memorialize the inaccuracy of the NFRTR, misleading statements by the BATFE, official audits that fail to follow Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) based on Government Auditing Standards,

The audits described in this article fell within the scope of COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS, (Washington, D.C., U.S. GPO, 1994), which has since been updated. lack of internal controls within the BATFE, and BATFE’s failure to follow procedure, as well as, the Congress’s and BATFE’s failure to rectify the NFRTR. While the Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, purports to have based its 1998 audit reports on GAGAS, inspection of various unpublished Work Papers from these audits disclose that pertinent findings were omitted from the published audit reports, and render a more accurate and complete version of the serious errors in the NFRTR and BATFE mismanagement.

1934-1980

Since the previous section, The Inaccuracies in the NFRTR, dealt mainly with issues that arose from 1933 to the 1980’s, I will not reiterate those occurrences. However, in 1968, after U.S. v. Haynes invalidated the registration provision of the NFA, Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85, 100 (1968). the Congress held hearings on new legislation, which would become the GCA.

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency,  Pursuant to S. Res. 240, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., (Washington, GPO, 1968), available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/IRS_Commissioner_GCA_Hearing.pdf.

The testimony most pertinent to this article is that of then Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Sheldon S. Cohen on the effect of U.S. v. Haynes on enforcement of the NFA. Although his statements do not acknowledge or characterize the inaccuracy of the NFRTR, they illustrate the likely impact on  the BATFE’s ability to prosecute individuals if a new amnesty period was established.

Commissioner Cohen stated, “We had been averaging, under the National Firearms Act, about 60 to 70 prosecutions per month for National Firearms Act violations. Since the first of this year, when the Haynes decision was rendered, we are down to about something in the excess of 40 a month.”

Hence, U.S. v. Haynes apparently hampered the BATFE's ability to prosecute individuals in just one out of three cases, presumably limited to cases for Possession of an Unregistered Firearm. Thus, establishing a new amnesty period will not prevent the BATFE from prosecuting violations of the NFA; and as will be shown, BATFE could still successfully prosecute some Possession of Unregistered Firearm cases.

1980-1995

In 1983, then Senator Robert Dole, before the Committee on the Judiciary, proposed amending the NFA to establish a “continuing registration period during which possessors of unregistered National Firearms Act (NFA) weapons could register such weapons.”

[U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. 914, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., at 62 (Washington,
GPO, 1984), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DolaNFAamend.pdf.]

knowingly and willfully misled the Congress in an official capacity as the representative of a federal law enforcement agency.

Eric M. Larson, Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record: A New Amnesty
Period May be Required to Correct Them, prepared for the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Services, and General Government of the Committee on Appropriations, at 57-67, Apr. 8, 1997, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/1997testimony.pdf.

In 1992, the BATFE threatened charging Noel Napolilli, a retired public school teacher, with Possession of an Unregistered Firearm because BATFE said it could find no record of his MP-40 machine gun, serial number 4202, in the NFRTR.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, Treasury Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, Part 5, Testimony of Member of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and Organizations, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 33-34 (Washington, GPO, 1998), available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/NoelNapolilli.pdf.

When Mr. Napolilli provided a copy of the Form 3 that the BATFE had approved, later shown to be a copy that the BATFE made and sent to him, rather than one of the copies prepared in duplicate that the BATFE approved, the BATFE claimed the document was a forgery. See Id. at 33.

Even though its own Forensic Document Laboratory examined the Form 3 and determined the document was genuine, the BATFE nevertheless seized and forfeited the firearm.

While BATFE contended the firearm had been illegally registered as “re-manufactured” because BATFE said it bore no evidence of re-manufacture, the fact that BATFE lost all of its computerized and hard copy records of the firearm precluded a definitive determination. See Id. It should be noted that the gun was not forensically examined by an independent expert.

BATFE wrote to James Jefferies, III, Mr. Napolilli’s attorney, that, “We agree with your observation that prior to Mr. Napolilli’s production of the above mentioned Form 3, ATF had no record of registration of the MP40 machinegun to Mr. Napolilli or any other person.”

Letter from Wayne Miller, Chief, National Firearms Act Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to James H. Jeffries III, dated Sept. 18, 1992, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFWayneMillerLetter- 1992.pdf.

Mr. Napolilli, left with no other option, filed suit.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, Treasury Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, Part 5, Testimony of Member of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and Organizations, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 84-86 (Washington, GPO, 1998) available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/NoelNapolilli.pdf.

However, he dropped his suit against the BATFE, “because my wife and I were fearful of BATF reprisal, the seizure of my sizeable firearms collection, … and being harassed by constant ‘inspections.’ There was substantial evidence that these things would likely occur based on other incidents with which I was familiar.” See Id. at 33.

Mr. Napolilli continued, “Iater learned that a BATF employee destroyed other registration documents to avoid having to work on them and that their database approached a 50% error rate.”

Mr. Napolilli’s predicament occurred shortly before a new round of hearings and testimonies on the inaccuracy of the NFRTR, as well as two audits of the NFRTR by the Treasury Department Inspector General published in 1998, which would continue for over the next decade. Indeed, in 2006, then Attorney General Gonzales refuted the BATFE’s position on refusing to accept previously approved paperwork. When Representative Chris Cannon asked, why do “I have just in my district many, many
people who have this problem, and they have paperwork that came from the ATF that is -- it's ignored by ATF,” Attorney General Gonzales replied, “That shouldn't be the case.”

U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Department of Justice, Serial No. 109-137, 109th
Cong., 2nd Sess., at 27 (Washington, GPO, 2006), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/DOJHearingserialno109-137.pdf.

1995-1998

As discussed in the section The Inaccuracy in the NFRTR, in the “Roll Call” training video then-BATFE Chief Busey ordered NFA Branch staff to commit perjury when testifying about the accuracy of the NFRTR.

BATFE/NFRTR Roll Call Training Video, Oct. 1995, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/rollcall_highlights.mp4 or as text http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/BuseyTranscript.pdf. This was obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 1996 by attorney James H. Jeffries.

The BATFE tried to mitigate Busey’s remarks by offering a “correction;” NFA Specialist, Gary N. Schaible, stated under oath, “I have never testified that the data base [NFRTR] is 100 percent accurate
nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any other of the NFA branch personnel, including Mr. Busey.”

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, Treasury Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997, Part 5, Testimony of Member of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and Organizations, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 183 (Washington, GPO, 1996), available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Schaiblecorrect.pdf. See also, U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, Treasury Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, Part 5, Testimony  of Member of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and Organizations, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 146-171 (Washington, GPO, 1998), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/LeaSuretest.pdf.

However, Schaible’s statement, which carefully avoids characterizing the true error rate of the NFRTR, raises doubts about the legitimacy and trustworthiness of any and all certifications that the BATFE might give in a criminal proceeding, as will be discussed in the section, The Intersection of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the NFRTR. Since the BATFE concedes that the NFRTR is not 100% accurate, how can any court deprive an individual of his/her liberty based on this inaccurate database, in the absence of a valid and reliable estimate such as would be obtained by a GAGAS audit?
Surely, this, combined with the Napolilli incident, meets the standard for reasonable doubt, in any proceeding.

Representative David Funderburk was not amused by the Busey comments and Schaible follow up. As a result, he proffered comments made by attorney James Jefferies into the Congressional Record:
Consider this matter in its starkest terms: a senior BATF official lecturing other senior BATF officials at BATF national headquarters in Washington, DC, declares openly and without apparent embarrassment or hesitation that BATF officers testifying under oath in Federal--and State--courts have routinely perjured themselves about the accuracy of official government records in order to send gun-owning citizens to prison and/or deprive them of their property. Just who is the criminal in these cases?

142 Cong. Rec. E 1461 (1996) (statement of Honorable David Funderburk reiterating James H. Jefferies, Institutional Perjury, VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE, Vol. 28, No. 4, Oct. 1996, at 28-30, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/1998testimony.pdf.

The record continues, “After reviewing the incriminating [Busey] tape, BATF officials discussed whether they could get away with destroying it.”

To push the point home, Representative Funderburk reiterated Jefferies comment that, When the fog had cleared Justice learned that the NFR&TR inaccuracy problem had been the subject of internal BATF discussion since at least 1979. BATF's files were replete with minutes of meetings, statistical
studies, memoranda, correspondence, et cetera, admiring the problem. The only thing missing was any attempt to correct the problem, or to reveal it to anyone outside the agency.

Most damaging was Jefferies legal opinion of the incident, The indirect consequences of BATF's conduct will not be so readily apparent but are potentially devastating. All across the country assistant U.S. attorneys, U.S. district judges, and other Federal and local law enforcement officials are going to learn what most defense lawyers and gun dealers have known for years and what the aftermath of Waco and Ruby Ridge starkly illustrated: BATF officers and agents lie, dissemble,
and cover up on an institutionalized basis. These are not aberrations; they are an institutional ethic, an organizational way of life. Just who is the criminal in these cases? See Id. at E 1461-62.

In 1996, the BATFE charged John Daniel LeaSure with illegal possession of firearms, in a case where the testimony of Mr. Schaible would later be impeached by an internal BATFE investigation into the destruction of NFA documents by BATFE employees.

U.S. v. LeaSure, No 4:95cr54 (E.D. Va. May 21, 1996); Transcript of Record at 217, U.S. v. LeaSure, No
4:95cr54 (E.D. Va. May 21, 1996), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/LeaSureTrial.pdf.
109 Transcript of Record at 236, U.S. v. LeaSure, No 4:95cr54 (E.D. Va. May 21, 1996), available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/LeaSureTrial.pdf.

During the investigation, Mr. Schiable told investigators, under oath, that one may have construed from his testimony, “that ATF employees were destroying documents, but this was not the case.”

Mr. Schiable’s sworn testimony in the LeaSure case clearly and legally establishes that the BATFE
destroyed NFA documents; otherwise, the United States would have appealed the decision to dismiss the convictions. To appeal and lose would have resulted in the Court of Appeals upholding the verdict and writing case law that would have invalidated the NFRTR.

1998

In October 1997, the Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, at the request of Representative Dan Burton, then Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, began investigating allegations that the NFRTR was inaccurate, incomplete and, therefore, unreliable.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Special Report on Allegations Concerning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm’s Registration and Record keeping of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records, OIG-99-009, 1 (Washington, Oct. 26, 1998), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-009-1998.pdf.

Chairman Burton requested the investigation in response to five specific allegations by a private citizen, based on statistical and documentary evidence, which “may be valid and legitimate.”

Treasury Department, Inspector General, Work Paper Bundle A, 1998 audit of NFRTR; available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Work_Papers_A.pdf at 53-54.

The Treasury Department Inspector General rendered a report on the citizen’s allegations in
October 1998.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Special Report on Allegations Concerning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm’s Registration and Record keeping of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records, OIG-99-009, at 1 (Washington, Oct. 26, 1998), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-009-1998.pdf.

The investigation found, among other things, that “National Firearms Act (NFA) documents had been destroyed about 10 years ago by contract employees. We could not obtain an accurate estimate as to the types and number of records destroyed”  [See Id. at 1. This is in direct contradiction to Mr. Schiable’s later testimony.]

and “ATF granted amnesty NFA registrations to individuals after December 1, 1968 on a limited
basis [almost 2,500 registrations] providing certain conditions were met. ATF did not publish its intent to grant an amnesty period as required by the Gun Control Act.” See Id. at 1, 13. It should be recognized that BATFE may have sought to provide an opportunity for certain applicants unable to participate in the amnesty because they were outside the continental United States, an opportunity to register unregistered firearms. Individuals on vacation, or serving overseas in the U.S. armed forces, may have been unaware of and unable to register their firearms due to the relatively short, 30-day amnesty period.

More importantly, the audit Work Papers memorialize a comment made by an Assistant Special Agent-in-Charge at the Baltimore field office: “When [redacted] first started with the agency in 1971, it was still under IRS. When ATF was made a separate Bureau in 1972, it was not an amicable split from IRS. He believes much of the documentation prior to 1972 may have been destroyed or maintained by IRS.”

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Work Papers C, A-CH-98-001, at C-18,
available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Work_Papers_C.pdf at 33-34.

The Treasury Department Inspector General undertook a separate audit of the NFRTR in addition to the one initiated in response to the citizen complaint, which examined other aspects of the NFRTR. This additional audit of the NFRTR was published in December of 1998.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report on Allegations Concerning
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Administration of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, OIG-99-018, (Washington, Dec. 18, 1998) available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-018-1998.pdf.

The additional audit revealed that the BATFE allowed unauthorized access to the database by individuals no longer employed by the BATFE, remittance checks were left unsecured, transfers were not processed in a timely manner, and NFA weapons are registered to dead people. See Id. at 1-23.

Furthermore, and more disconcerting, the audit found that when the BATFE combined the existing NFRTR database with its new upgraded NFRTR database, “ATF did not have adequate assurance that all of the entries had been transferred in order to make the registry complete for its intended use.” See Id. at 10.

The audit found, “An initial review by the OIG showed that the prior registry reflected a total registration of 2,545,425 compared to a total registration of 2,548,918 in the new database.” See Id. at 11.

Thus, the registry mysteriously grew by 3,493 entries. However, the Work Papers for this audit tell a much different story: “[redacted] also provided an additional report, Weapon Inventory of Current Owner. The total weapons count for this report is greater than the Annual Registration Activity Report. The variance between the two reports is 212,734.”

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Work Papers C, A-CH-98-001, at C-37
available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Work_Papers_C.pdf at 65.

The audit declared, “ATF officials advised us that in September 1997, they had reconciled the two databases, but they did not keep any record of it.”

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report on Allegations Concerning
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Administration of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, OIG-99-018, at 11 (Washington, Dec. 18, 1998) available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-018-1998.pdf.

Thus, the BATFE denied the Treasury Department Inspector General the ability to determine the truth value of their statement. Instead, in June of 1998, the BATFE did its own audit of the reconciliation and, “ATF reported to us that 407 records (entries) from the old database were not found in the new database.”

Thus, these are just the records to which were known; this audit does not depict all those records which were missing or destroyed, although properly registered. Specifically, consider the statement by a Treasury IG auditor Gary Wilk in an unpublished audit Work Paper that in repeated efforts to reconcile the “discrepancies observed” during the audit, BATFE did not clearly “demonstrate that the computer system, typically in use, provides reliable and valid data when a search is performed. ATF did demonstrate that they have the capacity to generate various information from various sources but the original documentation remains missing and the accuracy of the documentation provided cannot be assured.”

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Work Papers F, A-CH-98-001, at F-52,
available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Work_Papers_F.pdf at 62. These findings, while limited to Forms 4467, cannot depict the true accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR. No search, however
diligent, can possibly locate a document that has been lost or destroyed.

More troubling is the audit report’s statement, “In addition to the discrepancies between the old and the new databases, we observed discrepancies between the database and original registration documents.”

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report on Allegations Concerning
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Administration of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, OIG-99-018, at 11 (Washington, Dec. 18, 1998) available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-018-1998.pdf.

The audit report went on to state concern with a registration category labeled “Other” where, “If form numbers were incorrectly entered into the registry, the entry would also be included in this category.”

Yet another concern was the use of a Form 4467, which was used by the BATFE to register firearms during the 1968 Amnesty. Thus, if the BATFE does a search for a Form 4, which is the typical form used for transfer to an individual, the search would not yield a result, if the form had been entered in the “Other” or “4467” categories.

The audit report continued, ATF has certain formal procedures for entering data into the registry’s
database. However, the data entry errors such as those we found in our sample occurred because employees had not correctly entered some data. Also, supervisors or other employees did not always verify data entered into the database because of time limitations and other priorities. In response to our draft report, ATF officials also believed that discrepancies summarized in our table may be data entry errors and/or failures to enter information in accordance with established procedures. See Id. at 12.

Thus, these “errors” may cause a search of the NFRTR to fail to locate numerous legally registered firearms; this audit finding is virtually identical to determinations made by the Department of Justice Inspector General in its June 2007 report on a “review” of the NFRTR. Incredibly, even in light of this evidence of NFRTR inaccuracies, “ATF officials conclude that none of the identified discrepancies would affect the accuracy of a certificate of non-registration prepared by the NFA Branch for use in support of a criminal prosecution in United States district court.” See Id. at 13.

The report continued, ATF stated that it can identify all records that might possibly be the record sought,” which contradicts the BATFE’s admittance that it lost all of Mr. Napolilli’s records,

Letter from Wayne Miller, Chief, National Firearms Act Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms to James H. Jeffries III, dated Sept. 18, 1992, available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFWayneMillerLetter-1992.pdf.

the destruction of numerous NFA documents 10 years ago,

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Special Report on Allegations Concerning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm’s Registration and Record keeping of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records, OIG-99-009, at 1 (Washington, Oct. 26, 1998) available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-009-1998.pdf.

and those 407 missing records.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report on Allegations Concerning
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Administration of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, OIG-99-018, at 11 (Washington, Dec. 18, 1998) available at

Lastly, it must be noted that the samples drawn by the auditors were smaller than those that would ordinarily be drawn to establish standard estimates of precision and confidence. As explained in the report, “Because of the error rate we found in our discovery sample and actions that ATF had underway to improve the quality of the registry, we did not implement a full statistical sampling plan.” See Id. at 23.

While this was the only information provided to the public, the Work Papers, once again, explain why neither the actual error rate was listed, nor was the full statistical sampling plan implemented, in a discussion of audit findings the Treasury Department Inspector General omitted from the final reports. Of the 528 records and documents reviewed: We discovered a total of 395 errors or omissions of which 176 were Critical to the NFA mission and the remaining 219 were Administrative…We were unable to adequately identify 14,301 Unknown records contained within the category ‘Other.’ These records have subsequently been tentatively identified as 9,621 miscoded Form 6 and 4,680 unknown (database conversion errors).

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Work Papers H, A-CH-98-001, at H-0,
available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Work_Papers_H.pdf at 28.

Hence, the overall error rate, without consideration for the “Other” category, was 74.8%, and Critical error rate was 33.3%. To better understand the distinction between Critical and Administrative errors, “The name of the weapon owner and the weapon serial number were critical,” but “The address, date the document was received, the date of birth of the applicant, and weapon description were [not] critical;” hence, not critical has been termed Administrative.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Work Papers F, A-CH-98-001, at F-37
available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Work_Papers_F.pdf at 48.

More interesting, to this end, is the fact that “Table 3: Sampling Results: Error Rate Estimates” has been completely redacted.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Work Papers H, A-CH-98-001, available
at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Work_Papers_H.pdf at 35.

In a “Discovery” sample of seventy Form 4467s, the Treasury Department Inspector General determined that “Our discovery sample indicated an 18.4% error rate, one error per error Form 4467 in a ‘critical’ field.” See Id. at H-1, PDF at 32-60.

Because of concerns that the “critical error” rate was too high, the BATFE staff told the Treasury Department Inspector General’s auditors to use different definitions of “critical error” to determine the 4.3% error rate that can be calculated from data that the OIG formally reported; namely, 6 critical errors out of a “Discovery” sample of 141 cases.

There is evidence that in other, different, internal BATFE efforts in 1995 to reduce the error rate in the NFRTR, the BATFE staff manipulated the definition of “Significant Error,” including “Approved wrong firearm to transferee,” “Approved form never updated in NFRTR,” and “Misspelled and/or Incomplete names,” by simply redefining these as an “Error”

Eric Larson, Work Papers on Errors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, and
Other Issues Regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, at 38 (Apr. 2. 1999), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATF_Significant_Error.pdf. That is just a portion of the entire Work Papers, which can be found here: http://www.nfaoa.org/document/Critiqueof1998IGreports.pdf.

The discrepancy between the OIG and BATFE’s definition of “critical error” requires an examination of the Congressional Intent for a definition of “critical error.” The Congress, in 1968, defined “critical” information as: “(1) the identification of the firearm, (2) date of registration, and (3) identification and address of the person entitled to possession of the firearm.”

U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Judiciary, Report No. 1501: Gun Control Act of 1968, 90th Cong.,
2nd Sess., at 42 (1968), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/SenateReport1501 GCA1968.pdf.

Therefore, since the Congress felt these factors were crucial to the database, it was Congress’s intent that the absence of, or error in, any of these data fields correlates to a “critical error.” This definition is likely to yield a much higher error rate; thus, the BATFE is unlikely to support such a determination, even though the definition represents the original Congressional intent. Eric M. Larson, a Senior Analyst at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose complaint in his capacity as a private citizen to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight resulted in the 1998 audits of the NFRTR, agreed that the above are critical errors, “but they represent only the barest minimum guideline standards.”

Letter from Eric M. Larson, Response to Questions asked by Joshua Prince, to Joshua Prince, at 4, dated Jan. 1, 2008, available at http://blog.princelaw.com/assets/2008//5/Eric_Larson_letter_to_Joshua_Prince.pdf. Mr. Larson stated that his comments reflect his personal opinions, and do not represent the policy or position of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Mr. Larson continued, “To be accurate and reliable, ‘the identification of the firearm’ should include (1) serial number, (2) manufacturer, (3) name or model number of firearm, and (4) type of firearm (machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, any other weapon, and so forth).”

Furthermore, “The ‘identification and address of the person entitled to possess the firearm’ should include correct spelling of at least the last name, and a current address.” See Id. at 4-5.

While Mr. Larson’s guideline standards are more encompassing, the BATFE appears to have determined that even those guideline standards were not sufficient as critical fields in its interpretation of the Congressional mandate for the 1968 Amnesty and included the registrant’s date of birth, social security number and other information. Accordingly, in the January 1969 edition of Title 26 C.F.R, Section 179.201, the BATFE declared, The return, Form 4467, shall show the name, address, place of business or employment, employer identification number or social security number,
and date of birth of the registrant, the date the firearm was acquired, the place where the firearm usually is kept, the name, and address of the manufacturer, the type, model, length of barrel, overall length (when applicable), caliber or gauge, serial number, and other identifying marks of the firearms, and if an unserviceable firearm, the manner in which it was rendered unserviceable. Upon registering the firearm, the Director shall retain the original Form 4467 as part of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

26 C.F.R. 179.201 (1969), available at http://blog.princelaw.com/assets/2008/1/9/1969CFR-ATFamnesty-regs.pdf.

It seems a failure of due diligence for BATFE to fail to determine that the information specified in the 1969 regulations is not “critical” information in audits of the NFRTR, when it specifically interpreted its Congressional mandate to require the Director to collect this information on the Form 4467s to implement the 1968 amnesty, which was designed to register unregistered firearms and reliably identify them and their owners.

In the light of trends toward using biometric identifiers, a gradual tightening of standards to acquire
state-issued identification and related documents, such as driver's licenses, particularly under provisions of the Real ID Act, it may be advisable for the NFRTR to formally comply with federal provisions for positive identification that are and will be implemented in future, in its standards for positively identifying owners of NFA firearms. Similarly, BATFE might consider establishing standards for the reliable identification of individual NFA firearms

Nevertheless, given the evidence auditors discovered that the NFRTR was inaccurate and incomplete, it is astonishing that the Treasury Department Inspector General sought to distance himself from the issue of whether the NFRTR was accurate enough to sustain criminal prosecutions: Our [audit] scope did not include a review of the accuracy of ATF’s certifications in criminal prosecutions that no record of registration of a particular weapon could be found in the registry. We also did not evaluate the procedures that ATF personnel use to search the registry to enable them to provide an assurance to the court that no such registration exists in specific cases. Accordingly, this report does not provide an opinion as to the accuracy of the registry searches conducted by ATF.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report on Allegations Concerning
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Administration of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, OIG-99-018, at 4 (Washington, Dec. 18, 1998) available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-018-1998.pdf.

In 1998, the issues surrounding accuracy, or lack thereof, the NFRTR did not end with the 1998 audit. Robert I. Landies, an Ohio firearms dealer, contacted the BATFE in 1998 regarding the fact that they had transferred NFA firearms for which he had not submitted transfer applications, experienced “misplacement of transfer applications by ATF,” and “receipt of approved registrations for firearms which do not appear in the NFRTR.”

[Letter from Jimmy Wooten, Assistant Director, Firearms, Explosives &Arson, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, to Robert I. Landies, Ohio Ordnance Works, dated May 26, 1998, bearing symbols]

The BATFE responded, “The implementation of a new database and the realignment of branch functions and duties have significantly impacted upon the processing of applications and notices in recent months.”

The BATFE completely sidestepped the issues of missing records in the NFRTR and transfers of NFA weapons to other individuals, when no application for transfer was submitted. Yet, the BATFE contends that the database is accurate.

1999-2002

In 1999, the Disclosure Division of BATFE stated, in response to a FOIA request, that the NFRTR data records submitted to the Department of Treasury Inspector General were not accurate: “The report you refer to was submitted to the Inspector General of the Treasury, with the understanding that the report was not accurate, because some of the report functions associated with the database [NFRTR] are not working properly.”

Letter from Averill P. Graham, Disclosure Specialist, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to Eric
M. Larson, dated May 18, 1999, bearing symbols 112000 99-1420, available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/AverillGrahamletter1999.pdf.

The BATFE continued, “Our letter dated April 20, 1999 advised you of the inaccuracies we are still experiencing.”

Thus, the Disclosure Division, with responsibility to produce NFRTR records, contradicts the BATFE’s
statement in the 1998 audit that the NFRTR was accurate.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, Audit Report on Allegations Concerning
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ Administration of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, OIG-99-018, at 13 (Washington, Dec. 18, 1998), available at http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/TreasuryOIG-99-018-1998.pdf. “ATF officials conclude that none of the identified discrepancies would affect the accuracy of a certificate of non-registration prepared by the NFA Branch for use in support of a criminal prosecution in United States district court.” Id.

In 2000, concerned about BATFE’s answers to three questions it posed about errors in the NFRTR, the House Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, which requested Dr. Fritz J. Scheuren, an internationally recognized expert in administrative records and statistics, to evaluate the BATFE’s responses to three questions asked by the Subcommittee.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations, Treasury Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002, Part 3, Statements of Members of Congress and Other Interested Individuals and Organizations, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., at 23-26 (Washington, GPO, 2001), available at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/FritzScheuren.pdf. To see Dr. Scheuren’s resume, please find it at
http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/Scheuren_Resume_July_2007.pdf.

Dr. Scheuren, then affiliated
with The Urban Institute, more recently a past President of the American Statistical
Association and currently Vice President, Statistics, National Opinion Research Center,
University of Chicago, told the Subcommittee, regarding the technology question: “. . .
that very serious problems were uncovered in ATF’s record keeping systems. In fact, in
my own long experience [after reading the two Treasury Department Inspector General
audit reports on the NFRTR], I cannot think of any instance where poorer results were
obtained.” See Id. at 24

For the remaining questions on searchability of the NFRTR and heirs who inherit firearms, Dr. Scheuren “found the ATF answer to be unresponsive and too general to be useful,” and that “ATF indicated that it has no system to identify or track the firearm transfers to heirs,” respectively and was thus unable to answer the Subcommittee’s questions.

Dr. Scheuren concluded: I can only offer a qualified opinion on the ATF's answers but if their
responses are to be taken at face value, two conclusions arise: (1) ATF has serious material weaknesses in its firearm registration system which it has yet to acknowledge, and (2) the ATF steps taken to improve its record keeping system clearly lack thoroughness and probably lack
timeliness as well. See Id. at 25.

OK by Now it should be apparent that BATF or BATFE is a Political Body, and has been found in 2015 to have a Corporation affiliated with the Treasury and Northern Trust by the Bar. It is also apparent that their records based keeping is not accurate to solely rely on prosecution of anyone. Since it is foreign based, it must be Prosecuted as a de facto element within the United State Inc.