Final Response 2015-0677 For December 30 2015 Release

U.S.
Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
www.atf.gov
December 30, 2015
REFER TO: 2015-0677
Mr. David T. Hardy

8987 E. Tanque Verde
PMB 265
Tucson, AZ 85749
Dear Mr. Hardy:
This is in response to your March 12, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Your request is part of ongoing
litigation with this agency. This is the first release of documents that ATF has provided to you in
response to your request. We are providing documents responsive to items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of
your request. This is the third release of documents that ATF has provided to you. We will
continue to provide you more documents on a rolling production.
Certain material has been withheld from these documents pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5),
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C), and/or 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(E).
For this release, we have processed a total of 476 pages of potentially responsive material. We
are releasing 226 pages in full, and we are releasing 99 pages in part. We are withholding 151
pages in full, 115 of which are non-responsive material. Each page of this production indicates
whether it is being released in full (RIF) or released in part (RIP). Individual redactions
identify the exemption pursuant to which the redacted material has been withheld. If pages were
withheld in their entirety, a deletion sheet is included noting the reason for the withholding.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Boucher
Chief, Disclosure Division
Enclosures
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FTB Bulletin on Unfinished Receivers

Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:40:00 AM
FTB Technical Bulletin 14-01 10-31-13.pdf
1988
RIP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: Final Manufacturing of Unfinished Receivers

Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:44:00 AM
MANUFACTURING Roll Out Plan Internal TPs and Q and A 1-2-15.docx
FINAL Manufacturing Gunsmithing Ruling 1-2-2015.pdf
ATF Ruling on Unfinished Receivers and Q&A
(b) (6)
ATF Division Counsel, New York
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 10:46 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: Final Manufacturing of Unfinished Receivers
Please see the attached Ruling on the final manufacture of unfinished

receivers as well as talking points for press/industry inquiries.
(b) (6)
ATF Division Counsel, New York
1995
RIP
**DRAFT**DRAFT**DRAFT**
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege
1996
RIP
1997
RIP
1998
RIP
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
Serres, Greg; (b) (6)

Gross, Charles R.; (b) (6)
Petition for Remission Field Referral Memos
Friday, August 09, 2013 11:04:00 AM
Petition.Investigation.Field.Memorandum.docx
Petition Cover Memo-Counsel.docx
Petition Investigation Request Coversheet.docx
I have not forwarded this to the law clerks/paralegals.
Thank you,
(b) (6)
Division Counsel
k Field Division
(b) (6)
2005
RIP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
RE: Question
Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:45:00 PM
(b) (6)
You should refer him to Imports & NFA branches, as well as NY State Police.
There are any number of potential problems: (1) Just b/c the person in
England indicates that its been deactivated does not mean that it is no
longer an NFA weapon as it would still be a machine gun if it can be readily
restored; (2) if it is still a machine gun, I think the possession would be
unlawful under 922(o); (3) I dont think that a C&R FFL can import on his
own; (4) there may be import restrictions pertaining to both MGs and DWATS
that would prohibit the importation; (5) It is illegal to possess MGs in NY,
even if you have a gun permit (I dont know what level of deactivation NY
requires).
(b) (6)
Senior Attorney
Field Division
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:39 PM
To: Myerson, Uri M.
Subject: Question
I received a call from a New York resident who had a question:
is a Curio and Relic collector;

(b) (6)
He has a New York State gun permit;
He is in communication with a person from England and he wants to buy a deactivated machine
gun from this person in England;
Of course, he is not registered with NFA to possess a machine gun but I believe this is not a
machine gun because it is deactivated and is not capable firing any rounds of ammunition;
The only information that he knows is what he learned from the person in England.
Thanks
(b) (6)
2011
RIP
Thepurposeofapetitionforremissionispartialortotalremissionofforfeitureforindividualswhohaveaninterestin
theforfeitedpropertybutwhodidnotparticipatein,orhaveknowledgeof,theconductthatresultedintheproperty
beingsubjecttoforfeitureand,whererequired,tookallreasonablestepsunderthecircumstancestoensurethatsuch
propertywouldnotbeused,acquired,ordisposedofcontrarytolaw.See28CFRsec9.1(a).
Section9.5(a)saysTheRulingOfficialshallnotgrantremissionofaforfeitureunlessthepetitionerestablishesthat:
(ii)Thepetitionerisinnocentwithinthemeaningoftheinnocentownerprovisionsoftheapplicablecivilforfeiture
statute
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Pleaseletusknowifyouagreewiththerecommendation.Ifso,willyoubesendingalettertothepetitionernotifying
himofthe
Couldyoupleasesend(scanandemailisfine)usacopyofthe
Thankyou.
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

StaffAttorney
BureauofAlcohol,Tobacco,Firearms&Explosives
BostonFieldDivision
Office(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Cell(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
PleaseNote:Thiselectronictransmissionisintendedonlyfortheperson(s)namedabove.Itmaycontaininformation
thatisconfidentialandprotectedfromdisclosurebytheattorneyclientprivilegeand/orworkproductdoctrineor
exemptfromdisclosureunderotherapplicablelaws.Ifyouhavereceivedthistransmissioninerror,pleasedestroyit,
alongwithanyattachments,andnotifythesenderatthephonenumberoremailaddressabove.
(b)(5) - Deliberative
Process Privilege
and Attorney Client
Privilege
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and

Attorney Client Privilege
*******
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above in connection with official business. This
communication may contain Sensitive But Unclassified information that may be statutorily or otherwise prohibited from being released without appropriate
approval. Any review, use, or dissemination of this e-mail message and any attached file(s) in any form outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms &
Explosives or the Department of Justice without express authorization is strictly prohibited.
2014
RIP
2017
RIF
Direct:(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Fax:(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
OM - Support in Pursuit of Excellence

HowamIdoing?We'dappreciateyourfeedback.PleaseemailmysupervisoratAFSPD
[email protected].
*******
2020
RIP
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Thepurposeofapetitionforremissionispartialortotalremissionofforfeitureforindividualswhohaveaninterestin
theforfeitedpropertybutwhodidnotparticipatein,orhaveknowledgeof,theconductthatresultedintheproperty
beingsubjecttoforfeitureand,whererequired,tookallreasonablestepsunderthecircumstancestoensurethatsuch
propertywouldnotbeused,acquired,ordisposedofcontrarytolaw.See28CFRsec9.1(a).
(ii)Thepetitionerisinnocentwithinthemeaningoftheinnocentownerprovisionsoftheapplicablecivilforfeiture
statute
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney Client
Thus,theBostonfielddivisionrecommendsPrivilege; (b)(6); (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

StaffAttorney
BostonFieldDivision
Office(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Cell(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
*******
2022
RIP
(ii)Thepetitionerisinnocentwithinthemeaningoftheinnocentownerprovisionsoftheapplicablecivil
forfeiturestatute
TheapplicableforfeiturestatuteisSee19U.S.C.1618,whichrequiresonlythatwe(thedecidingofficialstatuteisold
soitsayssecretaryoftreasury,butourdecidingofficialisAFSPB.AFSPBalmostalwaysdoeswhatthefielddivision
recommends)believethatthepetitionerwaswillfullynegligentintheincidentthattriggeredtheseizureoftheguns.In
otherwords,wearentprosecutinghimfor922(g)(3)[possessionbyadruguser]b/citishardtoprovetoajurybeyond
areasonabledoubtthatapersonregularlyuseddrugsatsomeparticularpointinthepast.But,inordertodenythe
petition,thedecidingofficial(ATF)justneedtohaveareasonablebeliefthatthepetitionerbearssomeresponsibility
beyondnegligencefortheoffense(922(g)(3)).
Thecaseagent,(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) andhisRAC(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) arerecommending

Ifyouconcur,Iwilltell
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
AFSPbranchatHQandtheywillnotify
thathispetitionis
recommends
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney Client Privilege
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney

Client Privilege
(b)(5) Deliberative
Process Privilege
(b) (6), (b)

(7)(C)
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney

Client Privilege
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Thisleavesuswith2options:
1) (b)(5) - Deliberative
Process Privilege and Attorney Client Privilege; (b)(6); (b)(7)(C)
2)
AsofJune(thelasttimeweallthoughtaboutthis)(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney Client Privilege; (b)(6); (b)(7)(C)
(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

StaffAttorney
BostonFieldDivision
Office(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
2
2024
RIP
Cell(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
*******
2025
RIP
Non-Responsive
7. Topic: 80% Receivers

Questionregardinglowerreceiversbeingsoldbyinternetsiteas80%completewithnoserialnumberfortheunlicensed
persontofinish,isitlegal?
FIPB Response:
The term 80% receivers is not an ATF classification. This term is industry jargon used to promote the
marketing and sales of castings and flats. Since castings and flats have not been classified as firearms, they are
sold without any regulatory restrictions or oversight. There are no serial number requirements for such flats and
castings, and frequently they have few, if any, markings. The castings or flats along with a parts kit may be used
to manufacture a firearm. The GCA allows with certain exceptions, unlicensed individuals to make a firearm for
his/her own personal use, provided it is not being made for resale.
Additional information on this topic may be found in the Firearms Trafficking & Interdiction Branch Trends
Bulletin March 2012 issue. This document may be located by entering Firearms Trafficking & Interdiction
Branch in the search box on the ATF Portal. This publication is for internal ATF use only.
Non-Responsive
2030
RIP
Non-Responsive
Regards,
Nicholas O'Leary
Chief, Firearms Industry Programs Branch
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Ave. NE Mail Stop 6.N-524
Washington, DC 20226
TEL: (b) (6)
FAX: (b) (6)
*******
2033
RIP
2039
RIF
2040
RIF
2135
RIF
2136
RIF
2138
RIF
2140
RIF
2141
RIF
2142
RIF
2143
RIF
2144
RIF
2157
RIF
2171
RIF
2194
RIF
2200
RIF
2201
RIF
2204
RIF
2205
RIF
2212
RIF
2213
RIF
2226
RIF
2233
RIF
2234
RIF
2235
RIF
2236
RIF
2237
RIF
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: Airsoft Rulings

Monday, August 10, 2015 3:58:07 PM
4787gg.doc
4788gg.doc
5061gg.doc
| Attorney | Law & Policy Division | Office of Chief Counsel | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms &
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:39 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Airsoft Rulings
(b) (6) and (b) (6) attached please find the three final AirSoft Rulings- there are no signatures, but
these are the documents that were signed by the various acting Directors.
*******
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above in connection with
official business. This communication may contain Sensitive But Unclassified information that may be statutorily or otherwise prohibited
from being released without appropriate approval. Any review, use, or dissemination of this e-mail message and any attached file(s) in any
form outside of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives or the Department of Justice without express authorization is strictly
prohibited.
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:04 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Airsoft Rulings
Let me know if the attached are what youre looking for. thanks
*******
prohibited.
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:57 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Airsoft Rulings
(b) (6)
could I get copies of the signed rulings from you for the GCA and NFA firearms classification and
2238
RIP
the silencer ruling as well. Let me know. Thanks. (b) (6)

*******
prohibited.
2239
RIP
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Director
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM)

27 CFR 478.11: DEFINITIONS (FIREARM FRAME OR RECEIVER)
Air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide,
propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms that provide housing for a
hammer and firing mechanism with substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant
firearm receivers, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a
barrel and bolt, are firearm frames or receivers, and are, therefore, firearms, as that
term is defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR
478.11.
ATF Rul. 2010-4
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received requests for
evaluation and classification of air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms. Specifically,
ATF was asked whether these air guns are considered firearms under Federal law.
The M-16 is a military style combat machinegun. The AR style firearm is a semiautomatic version of the M-16, and both are produced using a variety of model
designations. ATF evaluated two air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms. These
particular air guns are manufactured with non-ferrous metal and duplicate the appearance
of various types of AR and M-16 rifles. They are designed to expel projectiles using
compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas.
The first sample ATF examined was an air gun replica of an M-16 rifle that has the
physical features of an M-16 firearm. It has all M-16 fire-control assembly pin holes
formed or indexed for fire-control components (i.e., hammer, trigger, disconnector,
selector lever, and machinegun sear). It utilizes fire-control components that differ only
slightly in design from M-16 fire-control components. The receiver of this air gun is
identical to an M-16 receiver, except for two features. The slot for the bolt-stop has been
altered to make room for a proprietary bolt-stop by reducing the height of the wall
separating the fire control cavity from the magazine well. Also, the ledge has been
removed from the fire-control cavity upon which an M-16 machinegun sear would
normally sit.
In conducting the evaluation of sample #1, the upper assembly was removed, the existing
bolt-stop was removed to allow movement of the hammer, and an M-16 upper assembly
2240
RIF
-2was installed. A test fire was then performed with the original automatic fire sear, and the
test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing a conventional .223 caliber
cartridge semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. The
original automatic fire sear was then replaced with an M-16 machinegun sear. A second
test firing was performed, and the test demonstrated that the sample was capable of firing
semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive. Sample #1 did not
expel more than one projectile by a single function of the trigger and is not a
machinegun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
The second sample ATF examined was an air gun replica of an M-16 rifle that has the
physical features of an M-16 firearm. It has all M-16 fire-control assembly pin holes
formed or indexed, and utilizes a proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism that did not
include an automatic-fire sear. The receiver of this air gun is identical to an M-16 receiver,
except for two dimensions. The length between the takedown pins is approximately 1/8
longer than on an M-16 receiver, and the width of the fire-control cavity is approximately
0.31 greater than an M-16 receiver.
ATF conducted a test of this air gun. In conducting the evaluation of this sample, the
upper assembly was removed, the proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism was
removed, the proprietary bolt-stop was removed, the indexed pin holes were drilled to
allow installation of M-16 fire-control components, and an M-16 upper assembly was
installed. A test fire was then performed, and the test demonstrated that the sample was
capable of firing semi-automatically, expelling a projectile by the action of an explosive.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its implementing regulation, 27
CFR 478.11, define the term firearm, in part, as any weaponincluding a starter
gunwhich will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the
action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon Under 27 CFR
478.11, the term firearm frame or receiver is defined as [t]hat part of a firearm which
provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is
usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.
The air gun replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms examined have the appearance,
dimensions, and substantially the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers and
completed weapons. The air gun replicas provide housing for a hammer and firing
mechanism, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and
bolt. Because the air gun replicas provide housing with substantially the same design as
AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers, they incorporate firearm receivers. Moreover, though
not necessary for classification, once the upper assemblies (and, in the second sample, firecontrol components) were installed and test fired, they both expelled projectiles by the
action of an explosive. Because the air gun replicas of the AR/M-16 variant firearms
incorporate firearm receivers, they are firearms, as defined by the Gun Control Act of
1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.
Held, air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon
dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms that provide
2241
RIF
-3housing for a hammer and firing mechanism with substantially the same design as AR/M16 variant firearm receivers, and mounting points for attaching an upper assembly
containing a barrel and bolt, are firearm frames or receivers, and are, therefore,
firearms, as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B), and its implementing
regulation, 27 CFR 478.11.
To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any prior classifications, they are hereby
superseded.
Date approved: November 5, 2010
Kenneth E. Melson
Deputy Director
4787gg.doc; (b)
(6) - 6/1/10; 1/13/11
2242
RIP

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23): DEFINITIONS (MACHINEGUN)

26 U.S.C. 5845(b): DEFINITIONS (MACHINEGUN)
27 CFR 478.11: DEFINITIONS (MACHINE GUN)
27 CFR 479.11: DEFINITIONS (FIREARM; MACHINE GUN)
Air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide,
propane, or similar gas) replicas of M-16 variant firearms that have firearm receivers with
mounting pin holes indexed, formed, or drilled for the installation of a machinegun sear
incorporate machinegun receivers and, therefore, are machineguns as that term is
defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23), the National Firearm Act,
26 U.S.C. 5845(b), and their implementing regulations, 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11.
ATF Rul. 2010-5
evaluation and classification of air gun replicas of M-16 variant firearms. Specifically,
ATF was asked whether these air guns are considered firearms under Federal law.
The M-16 is a military style combat machinegun made under a variety of model
designations. ATF evaluated two air gun replicas of M-16 variant firearms. These
particular air guns were manufactured using a non-ferrous metal and duplicate the
appearance of M-16 type rifles. They are designed to expel projectiles using compressed
air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas.
Both samples ATF examined were air gun replicas of M-16 machineguns that have the
physical features of an M-16 machinegun. The air guns have M-16 fire-control assembly
pin holes either formed or indexed and utilize a proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanism
that does not include an automatic fire sear. The receiver of this air gun is identical to an
M-16 receiver, except for one feature. The slot for the bolt-stop has been altered to make
room for a proprietary bolt-stop by reducing the height of the wall separating the fire
control cavity from the magazine well.
In conducting the evaluation of the samples, the air guns upper assemblies were removed,
the proprietary drop-in fire-control mechanisms were removed, the proprietary bolt-stops
were removed, the indexed pin holes were drilled to allow installation of M-16 fire-control
components to include M-16 machinegun sears, and M-16 upper assemblies were installed.
A test fire was then performed using each sample. A magazine with a single round of .223
caliber ammunition was inserted into each sample. The selector lever was moved to the
2243
RIF
-2SEMI position and the trigger was pulled. The air gun samples expelled a projectile by
the action of an explosive. A magazine with five rounds of .223 caliber ammunition was
then inserted into each sample. The selector lever was moved to the AUTO position,
and the trigger was pulled. Both air gun samples expelled all five rounds, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
The National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(6), and its implementing regulation,
27 CFR 479.11, define the term firearm, in part, as a machinegun. The term
machinegun is defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23),
the NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), and their implementing regulations, 27 CFR 478.11 and
479.11, as any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to
shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of
the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon
As explained in ATF Rul. 2010-4, approved November 5, 2010, air gun replicas of AR/M16 variant firearms that provide housing for the hammer and firing mechanism, and
mounting points for attaching an upper assembly containing a barrel and bolt are firearm
frames or receivers, and are, therefore, firearms, as that term is defined by 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(3)(B) and 27 CFR 478.11. The air gun replicas of M-16 variant firearms examined
have substantially the same appearance, dimensions, and design as the air gun replicas
evaluated in ATF Rul. 2010-4, and incorporate firearm receivers. They are, therefore,
firearms under the GCA.
Unlike the air gun receivers examined in ATF Rul. 2010-4, the M-16 variant air gun
receivers evaluated herein also have machinegun sear mounting pin holes indexed. The
indexed holes on the air guns are at the same location and size as those on an M-16 variant
machinegun receiver. The proper size and location of the machinegun sear mounting pin
holes are design characteristics of an M-16 machinegun receiver, whether or not the holes
are drilled or the machinegun sear is installed. Once drilled, the holes allowed installation
and function of M-16 machinegun sears. Based on their design, these receivers are
machinegun receivers. Moreover, though not necessary for classification, once the
components were installed and test fired, the replicas shot automatically more than one
shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. Because the air gun
replicas of the M-16 variant firearms incorporate machinegun receivers, they are
machineguns, as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23), the
National Firearm Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), and their implementing regulations, 27 CFR
478.11 and 479.11.
Held, air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon
dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of M-16 variant firearms that have firearm
receivers with mounting pin holes indexed, formed, or drilled for the installation of a
machinegun sear incorporate machinegun receivers and, therefore, are machineguns as
that term is defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23), the National
Firearm Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), and their implementing regulations, 27 CFR 478.11 and
479.11.
2244
RIF
-3To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any prior classifications, they are hereby
superseded.
Kenneth E. Melson
Deputy Director
4788gg.doc; (b)
(6) - 11/29/10; 1/13/11
2245
RIP


18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM MUFFLER AND FIREARM
SILENCER)
27 CFR 478.11: DEFINITIONS (FIREARM, AND FIREARM MUFFLER OR
FIREARM SILENCER)
27 CFR 479.11: DEFINITIONS (FIREARM, AND MUFFLER OR SILENCER)
A device that is attached, or may be attached to an air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a
projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) with the design
characteristics of a conventional firearm silencer or firearm muffler, is a firearm
silencer or firearm muffler, as defined under the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(24), and the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(7). The manner in which
the device is or may be attached (i.e., press fitting, use of an adapter, quick detach
mechanism, threaded fitting, taping, crimping, welding, casting, or otherwise) to an air
gun is irrelevant to whether the device has the design characteristics of a conventional
firearm silencer or firearm muffler. ATF Ruling 2005-4 is clarified.
ATF Rul. 2011-5
evaluation and classification of devices sold with air guns that reduce their report, or sound
they produce. Specifically, ATF was asked whether the devices would be considered a
firearm silencer or firearm muffler under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18
U.S.C. Chapter 44, or the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
ATF evaluated devices commonly sold with air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a projectile
using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of firearms. These
devices are sold by manufacturers either already attached to the air gun, or individually
with a wide variety of attachment methods, such as a threaded end cap, adjustable
clamping sleeve, or none at all (i.e., simple press fit). When sold individually, the
purchasers determine how they will attach the silencer to their air guns and modify them to
accept the silencer.
During physical examination, ATF found that the devices incorporated the physical
features of a conventional firearm silencer or firearm muffler, including an outer tube,
front and rear end caps with ports aligned and sized to allow passage of projectiles, and an
expansion chamber. Some of the devices had additional features of a conventional
firearms silencer or firearm muffler, such as baffles and baffling material. The devices are
2246
RIF
-2or may be attached to the barrel of an air gun by press fitting, use of an adapter, quick
detach mechanism, threaded fitting, taping, crimping, welding, casting, or otherwise. It
was also determined that all of the devices examined could be attached to the barrel of a
portable firearm.
Although not required for classification, a sound meter comparison test was performed on
the devices. To conduct the sound meter test, ATF attached one of the devices to a .22LR
caliber pistol with an adapter to assess whether the device reduced the report of a portable
firearm. During the test, five shots were fired with the device attached and five shots were
fired without the device attached. The result of the test was a 22.92 decibel sound
reduction. An identical test was conducted on a second device that was attached to a
.22LR caliber pistol. The result of the test was an 8.02 decibel sound reduction. An
identical test was conducted on a third device that was attached to a .22LR caliber pistol.
The result of the test was an 8.82 decibel sound reduction. An identical test was conducted
on a fourth device. The result of the test was a 6.78 decibel sound reduction.
The GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(C), defines the term firearm, in part, as any firearm
muffler or firearm silencer . . . The terms firearm silencer and firearm muffler in 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(24) mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a
portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended
for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part
intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. The NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(7),
defines firearm, in part, as any silencer . . . as defined in section 921 of the GCA.
Conventional silencers for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable
firearm have a combination of the following design characteristics: an outer tube, front
and rear end caps with ports aligned and sized to allow passage of projectiles, an internally
mounted ported tube, baffles, baffling material, and/or expansion chambers. Conventional
firearm silencers are also designed to be attached to a barrel from which projectiles are
expelled.
The design characteristics of each of the devices examined are almost identical to those of
conventional firearm silencers. Further, the devices could be attached to the barrel of a
portable firearm, though the manner in which a device is or may be attached is irrelevant to
whether the device has the design characteristics of a conventional firearm silencer or
firearm muffler. Moreover, although not required for classification, sound meter testing
revealed that these devices reduced the report of a firearm. ATF therefore finds that these
items are devices for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.
ATF Ruling 2005-4, approved October 12, 2005, is distinguishable. In that ruling, ATF
examined a paintball gun and found that, although the paintball gun was not a firearm, as
defined, the design characteristics of its ported barrel and outer sleeve were similar to those
of conventional firearm silencers. However, unlike the silencers classified in this ruling,
the paintball gun silencer examined was permanently integrated into its barrel. It was
made as an integral component of the barrel, and could not be manually detached without
destroying a substantial portion of its barrel. Under these circumstances, ATF found that
2247
RIF
-3the paintball gun with its ported barrel was not a silencer. ATF further concluded,
nonetheless, that if the integral barrel was severed, because of its design characteristics,
such removal would result in the making of a firearm silencer. Though not required for
classification, ATF severed the paintball guns barrel with a hacksaw, tested it, and found
that it reduced the report of a firearm.
Held, a device that is attached, or may be attached to an air gun (i.e., a gun that
expels a projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) with the
design characteristics of a conventional firearm silencer or firearm muffler, is a firearm
silencer or firearm muffler, as defined under the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(24), and the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(7).
Held further, the manner in which the device is or may be attached (i.e., press fitting,
use of an adapter, quick detach mechanism, threaded fitting, taping, crimping, welding,
casting, or otherwise) to an air gun is irrelevant to whether the device has the design
characteristics of a conventional firearm silencer or firearm muffler.
ATF Ruling 2005-4 is hereby clarified. To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any
prior classifications, they are hereby superseded.
B. Todd Jones
Acting Director
5061gg.doc; (b)
(6) - 6/1/10; 7/19/10; 5/23/11; 11/15/11
2248
RIP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: Documents
New ADC Powerpoint (St. Louis 2014).pptx
(b) (6)
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:09 PM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: Documents
All,
Non-Responsive
Also, link to PDF on 80% receivers here:
P:\COUNSEL\FEA\80% Receiver Articles
Attorney
Firearms, Explosives and Arson Division (FEA)
Office of Chief Counsel
244 Needy Road, Room 1119
Martinsburg, WV 25405-9431
ofc: (b) (6)
fax: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
WARNING: This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Title 18, United States
Code, Sections 2510-2521. This electronic transmission is intended only for the person(s) named
above. It may contain information that is confidential and protected from disclosure by the attorneyclient privilege and/or work product doctrine, or exempt from disclosure under other applicable laws.
Any use, distribution, copying or other disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. Do not
forward or re-transmit without the permission of sender,the United States Department of
Justice, or ATF Chief Counsel's Office. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender at the number or e-mail above.
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION
2249
RIP

******* NOTICE: This electronic transmission is confidential and intended only for the person(s)
to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender
by return e-mail and destroy this message in its entirety (including all attachments).
2250
RIF
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Importance:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: FTB Bulletin re Unfinished AR-type Receivers

FTB Bulletin 14-01 80 percent receivers.pdf
High
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:28 PM
To: All CC Field Attorneys (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: FTB Bulletin re Unfinished AR-type Receivers
Importance: High
Fyi in case you didnt receive this law enforcement sensitive bulletin from last year regarding
unfinished AR-type receivers.
- (b) (6)
Associate Chief Counsel

Firearms, Explosives and Arson Division
99 New York Ave., NE, Room 6E-363
Washington, D.C. 20226
Tel: (b) (6)
Fax: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
2356
RIP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Importance:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: FTB Bulletin re Unfinished AR-type Receivers

FTB Bulletin 14-01 80 percent receivers.pdf
High
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:28 PM
To: All CC Field Attorneys (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: FTB Bulletin re Unfinished AR-type Receivers

Importance: High
Fyi in case you didnt receive this law enforcement sensitive bulletin from last year regarding
unfinished AR-type receivers.
- (b) (6)

Tel: (b) (6)
Fax: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
2363
RIP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: Letter from Ares Attorneys

80-Percent-Receiver-Analysis-for-Forfeiture.pdf
ATT00001.htm
(b) (6)
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 2:31 PM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: FW: Letter from Ares Attorneys
fyi
- (b) (6)

Tel: (b) (6)
Fax: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 1:34 PM
To: Gross, Charles R.; Serres, Greg; (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Letter from Ares Attorneys
forwarded this to me. Hes still on leave. Not sure if it has made its way to HQ or Martinsburg
yet. If so, not sure if decision has been made as to whether we respond.
(b) (6)
One of the attorneys (b) (6) has been dealing with has his name on the letterhead (b) (6)
recognize (b) (6)
name as well long time gun rights activist/attorney.
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege; Attorney Client Privilege; Attorney Work Product Privilege
From: (b)
(6)
2375
RIP
As discussed, please find attached the signed manufacturing/gunsmithing ruling and our internal
talking points.
Thank you for all of your work on this project.

Robyn
2411
RIF
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: Memo to AG re Air Gun Frames and Receivers - 4-7-10 (4)

Memo to AG re Air Gun Frames and Receivers - 4-7-10 (4).docx
(b) (6)
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:39 PM
To
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: Memo to AG re Air Gun Frames and Receivers - 4-7-10 (4)
For your information only. This will be going out soon.
2421
RIP
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THROUGH:
THE ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
Kenneth E. Melson, Deputy Director

SUBJECT:
Firearm Receivers of Air Gun Replicas of AR/M-16 Variant Firearms
PURPOSE:
To Provide Background Regarding Prosecution of Cases Involving

Firearm Frames or Receivers
TIMETABLE:
Not Applicable
SYNOPSIS:
ATF is in the process of taking enforcement actions involving air gun

replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms that have been determined by ATF
to be firearms under Federal law. This memorandum provides
background and court case summaries in which ATF has taken
enforcement actions involving firearm receivers.
DISCUSSION:
ATF is in the process of taking enforcement actions involving air gun (i.e., a gun that expels a
projectile using compressed air, carbon dioxide, propane, or similar gas) replicas of AR/M-16
variant firearms that have been determined by ATF to have firearm receivers. The air guns in
question were manufactured with non-ferrous metal and duplicate the appearance of various
types of AR and M-16 rifles. The M-16 is a military style combat machinegun. The AR style
firearm is a semi-automatic version of the M-16, and is produced using a variety of model
designations. ATF evaluated several of these air guns and determined that these air gun replicas
are firearms subject to the restrictions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), Title 18, United
States Code, Chapter 44, and that some of the M-16 variant replicas were also machineguns
under the GCA and the National Firearms Act (NFA), Title 26, United States Code, Chapter 53.
2422
RIF
Memorandum for the Attorney General

Subject: Firearm Receivers of Air Gun Replicas of AR/M-16 Variant Firearms
Page 2
Background
Firearm frames, commonly associated with pistols and revolvers, and receivers, commonly
associated with rifles and shotguns, fall within the definition of firearm in the GCA.
Specifically, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.11, define
firearm, in part, as any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may
readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver
of any such weapon Under 27 CFR 478.11, the term firearm frame or receiver is defined
as [t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and
firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward position to receive the barrel.
Machinegun frames and receivers are also regulated under the GCA and NFA. Specifically, the
National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(6), and its implementing regulation, 27 CFR 479.11,
define the term firearm, in part, as a machinegun. The term machinegun is defined by the
GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23), the NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), and their implementing regulations, 27
CFR 478.11 and 479.11, as any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon
ATF determined that the air guns examined have the appearance, dimensions, and substantially
the same design as AR/M-16 variant firearm receivers and completed weapons. In addition,
ATF determined that these air guns were weapons that may readily be converted to expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive. Based on either of these conclusions, the air gun
replicas of AR/M-16 variant firearms are firearms, as defined by the GCA, 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(3), and its implementing regulations, 27 CFR 478.11.
ATF also determined that, unlike the AR (semi-automatic) receivers, the M-16 variant air gun
receivers examined had machinegun sear mounting pin holes indexed. The indexed holes on the
air guns are at the same location and size as those on an M-16 machinegun receiver. The proper
size and location of the machinegun sear mounting pin holes is a design characteristic of an M16 machinegun receiver, whether or not the holes are drilled or the machinegun sear is installed.
Once drilled, these holes allow installation and function of an M-16 machinegun sear and, once
installed, the replicas shot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a
single function of the trigger. Because of their design, the M-16 variant air gun receivers
examined are machinegun receivers, and therefore, machineguns, as defined by 26 U.S.C.
5845(b) and 27 CFR 479.11.
Thousands of air guns with firearm receivers have been imported into the United States without
approval from ATF. Because these air guns contain receivers for non-sporting firearms, they
would have been prohibited from importation for commercial distribution, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
922(l) and 922(d)(3). Those air guns that have machinegun receivers were prohibited from
importation for commercial sale and were also prohibited from being transferred to and
possessed by private persons, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(o), 925(d)(3), 26 U.S.C. 5861(d)
and 5844. Further, because they were imported unlawfully, the receivers were not marked with a
serial number as required by 18 U.S.C. 923(i) and 27 C.F.R. 478.92 and 479.102. As there
2423
RIF

Page 3
are no serial numbers or records made by the importers, manufacturers, or distributors of the
weapons, ATF would be unable to trace any of these firearms.
Notable Court Cases Involving Firearm Receivers:
Stewart v. United States, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006): Defendant felon advertised and sold
.50 caliber rifle parts kits that contained unfinished rifle receivers. ATF readily completed
the unfinished receivers and converted them to fire a projectile by the action an explosive,
and for this reason, classified them as firearms under the Gun Control Act. A search
warrant was conducted based on ATFs classification, and ATFs finding was upheld by the
District Court. During the search, homemade machineguns and machinegun receivers
were found, and defendant was charged with unlawful possession of machineguns under
section 922(o). Although the 9th Circuit initially rejected the authority of Congress to
prohibit that conduct as-applied to the defendant, on appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the
case back to the 9th Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1
(2006). On reconsideration, the 9th Circuit overturned its prior decision and held that
Congress had authority to prohibit the illegal possession of homemade machineguns.
MKS Machinegun Receiver Cases (United States v. Kelly, 276 Fed. Appx. 261 (4th Cir.
2007); United States v. One TRW, Model M14, 7.62 Caliber Rifle, 441 F.3d 416 (6th Cir.
2006); United States v. TRW Rifle 7.62x51mm Caliber, 447 F.3d 686 (9th Cir. 2006); United
States v. M-K Specialties Model M-14 Machinegun Serial Number 1447797, 424 F. Supp. 2d
862 (N.D.W.V. 2006)): MK Specialties, Inc. sold numerous semi-automatic rifles it
manufactured from cut-up M-14 machinegun receivers. ATF classified the MK receivers as
machineguns after determining that the MK receivers were: (1) originally designed as M14 machinegun receivers, and (2) readily restored to shoot multiple rounds automatically.
Defendant Kelly was charged with, among other things, possession of unregistered
machineguns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). Numerous MK receivers were also
administratively seized by ATF throughout the United States, and civil forfeiture cases were
filed by the Government against those receivers. In upholding the civil forfeitures (and
Kellys criminal conviction on other charges) the courts uniformly held that the MK
receivers were originally designed as machinegun receivers, and they were readily restored to
fire fully automatically, and therefore, were machineguns as defined by the GCA and NFA.
United States v. 1,100 Machinegun Receivers, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (D. Utah 1999): The
Government brought a civil forfeiture action against 1,100 machinegun receivers willfully
imported by Interport, Inc. without the required permit. The District Court upheld the
forfeiture, ruling that the defendant receivers met the regulatory definition of receivers in 27
C.F.R. 178.11 (now 478.11) in that they provided housing for a hammer, bolt and firing
mechanism. The court further stated that it made no difference that those receivers were not
able to receive a barrel, by threading or otherwise.
United States v. Evans, 712 F. Supp. 1435 (D. Mont. 1989), affd, 928 F.2d 858 (9th Cir.
1991): Defendants were charged with conspiring to cause illegal possession of machineguns,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). One of the defendants sold
2424
RIF

Page 4
incomplete Sten machinegun conversion kits, while the other sold to the same customers
steel tube receivers missing from those kits with installation instructions. In denying a
motion to dismiss, the District Court ruled that because the steel tubes were designed to be
fitted as machinegun receivers, they were machineguns under the GCA and NFA.
United States v. Podhorn, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16712 (S.D. Ill 2006): Defendant, a
federally licensed firearms dealer, was convicted of willfully failing to maintain records of a
firearms transferee (18 U.S.C. 922(b)(5)), making false statements in his records
(924(a)(3)/1001), selling stolen firearms (922(j)); and failing to maintain records (922(m)).
In a related criminal forfeiture proceeding, the District Court upheld the forfeiture of, among
other firearms, a lower receiver of an FN-FAL rifle for having been involved in a violation of
section 922(n) (receipt of a firearm by a person under indictment for a felony). In so ruling,
the court held that the lower receiver provided housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock,
and firing mechanism, and therefore, was a firearm frame or receiver, and thus, a firearm
as defined by 27 C.F.R. 478.11.
United States v. Wiegand, et al, No. 3:04CR15-MU, WDNC: Firearms licensee illegally
imported PPSH, FN FAL, Steyr MP69 and L1A1 machinegun receivers, alleging on ATF
Forms 6 that the weapons were part kits that had been destroyed in such a manner to
remove them from the purview of the National Firearms Act. These were seized from the
licensees premises by ATF pursuant to a search warrant, and after an involuntary recall.
The PPSH receivers were readily restored by ATF to fire fully automatically in less than 14
minutes, using duct tape and cable ties. The FN FAL receivers were restored with spot welds
and cable ties in less than one hour. The Steyr receivers were restored by welding a piece of
sheet metal to the cut frame in under one hour. Based on both the design of the receivers,
and easy restoration to fire automatically, the PPSH and FN FAL receivers were determined
by ATF to be machineguns. The Steyr receivers were determined to be machineguns based
on the restoration only (i.e., not on the original design of the receiver). This case was
resolved in a plea agreement whereby the licensee (Interordnance of America, LLP) pleaded
guilty to violation of 26 U.S.C. 5861(d) (possession of unregistered machineguns). The
seized PPSH firearms were forfeited to the United States and the remaining firearms were
destroyed (i.e., removed from NFA regulation) under ATF supervision.
ATF also has several active/pending criminal cases involving firearm receivers, to include
the manufacture of receivers without a license.
2425
RIF
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: Quick Q: USML Confirmation: 80% Export Case Information

(b) (6)
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Quick Q: USML Confirmation: 80% Export Case Information
Hello (b) (6) and (b) (6)
Thank you!
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: USML Confirmation: 80% Export Case Information
Hello (b) (6)
(b)(5) - Attorney Client Privilege

2426
RIP
Thank you!
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Explosives |202 648 8808 | [email protected]
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: 80% Export Case Information
Hello (b) (6)
I am sorry I could not get you any information sooner than this. (b) (6)
I want to provide you
with some background on what is implicated here so that you have the information to use in your
work with (b) (6) his affidavit, and his case going forward. I think the context could prove useful and
helpful.
(b) (6)
2427
RIP
Again, please let me know if I can provide you with additional information. I will also be checking
with the State Department on 80% receivers.
Thank you,
2429
RIP

From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:38 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Email case
(b) (6) and (b) (6) below is what I have in the affidavit for the moment.
(b)(5) - De iberative Process Privilege; Attorney C ient Privilege
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege; Attorney Client Privilege
2431
RIP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: unfinished AR receivers (80%)

(b) (6)
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:24 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: unfinished AR receivers (80%)
(b) (6)
my responses to your questions:
2434
RIP

Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Division Counsel
Firearms & Explosives
Boston Field Division
(W)
(b) (6)
(F)
(b) (6)
(C)
(b) (6)
2436
RIP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: unfinished AR receivers (80%)

(b) (6)
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: Armstrong, Dale L.

Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 1:59 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
THNX!
Dale Armstrong
ASAC Boston Field Division

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF)
10 Causeway Street - Suite 791 Floor - Boston, MA 02222
Telephone: (b) (6)
Cell: (b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:34 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Armstrong, Dale L.; (b) (6)
Hello (b) (6)
2437
RIP

Also, please let me know if you have any follow-up questions, or if it appears I have misunderstood
your questions.
Regards,
- (b) (6)

Tel: (b) (6)
Fax: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:20 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Armstrong, Dale L.
Subject: unfinished AR receivers (80%)
(b) (6)
Good morning. Hope all is well with you.
2439
RIP
If we have not dealt with this before, do we have a contact over at DDTC who can provide some
guidance.
Thanks.
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Division Counsel
Firearms & Explosives
Boston Field Division
(W)
(b) (6)
(F)
(b) (6)
(C)
(b) (6)
2440
RIP
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
FW: Unfinished Receiver Litigation Report

California Rifle and Pistol Assn Inc LitReport EDCa (11-7-2014).pdf
(b) (6)
Explosives |(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 3:00 PM
To
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: Unfinished Receiver Litigation Report
FYI
2441
RIP
Case 3:14-cv-00548-JLS-BGS Document 68-2 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 3
1 LAURA E. DUFFY
United States Attorney
2 DANIEL E. BUTCHER
Assistant U.S. Attorney
3 California Bar No. 144624
Office of the U.S. Attorney
4 880 Front Street, Room 6293
San Diego, CA 92101
5 Tel: (619) 546-7696
Fax: (619) 546-7751
6 Email: [email protected]
7 JOHN R. TYLER
LISA A. OLSON
8 U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
9 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 7300
10 Tel: (202) 514-5633
Fax: (202) 616-8470
11 Email: [email protected]
12 Attorneys for the United States
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15 LYCURGAN, INC. dba ARES ARMOR,

Plaintiff,
16
17
Case No.: 14CV548 JLS (BGS)

EXHIBIT DEFENDANT'S MOTION
TO DISMISS AND FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
v.
18 B. TODD JONES, in his official capacity

as Head of the San Diego Bureau of
19 Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives; and DOES 1-10,
20
Defendants
21
Contents
22
Exhibit 1
23
- Figure 1: Image of the upper assembly separated from the lower receiver
- Figure 2: Image of the biscuit and fire-control cavity in an opaque receiver
24
- Figure 3: Image of the biscuit in a transparent receiver
- Figure 4: Image of the fire-control cavity and the biscuit shown from above
25
- Figure 5: Image of a receiver blank
- Figure 6: Image of an example of a firearm blank
- Figure 7: Image of a side view of the EP80
26
- Figure 8: Image of the lug of the upper assembly and the lug hole in the
lower receiver
27
28
2454
RIF
EXHIBIT 1
2455
RIF
2456
RIF
2458
RIF

Final Response 2015-0677 For December 30 2015 Release

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Response 2015-0677 For December 30 2015 Release

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Response 2015-0677 For December 30 2015 Release

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

December 30, 2015

REFER TO: 2015-0677

Mr. David T. Hardy

FTB Bulletin on Unfinished Receivers

FW: Final Manufacturing of Unfinished Receivers

ATF Ruling on Unfinished Receivers and Q&A

From: (b) (6)

Please see the attached Ruling on the final manufacture of unfinished

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege

Serres, Greg; (b) (6)

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege

I have not forwarded this to the law clerks/paralegals.

is a Curio and Relic collector;

He has a New York State gun permit;

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and

Direct:(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

OM - Support in Pursuit of Excellence

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney Client

Thus,theBostonfielddivisionrecommendsPrivilege; (b)(6); (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Thecaseagent,(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) andhisRAC(b) (6), (b) (7)(C) arerecommending

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney Client Privilege

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney

(b) (6), (b)

(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege and Attorney

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Process Privilege and Attorney Client Privilege; (b)(6); (b)(7)(C)

(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

Cell(b) (6), (b) (7)(C)

7. Topic: 80% Receivers

FW: Airsoft Rulings

Explosives |(b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

From: (b) (6)

the silencer ruling as well. Let me know. Thanks. (b) (6)

U.S. Department of Justice

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM)

Date approved: November 5, 2010

(6) - 6/1/10; 1/13/11

U.S. Department of Justice

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23): DEFINITIONS (MACHINEGUN)

(6) - 11/29/10; 1/13/11

U.S. Department of Justice

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITIONS (FIREARM)