Gunmaker to feds: Make my day!
Expert refutes 2nd government claim about automatic fire
2008 WorldNetDaily
A gun expert who alleges the U.S. government is retaliating against him
<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69668>
for his
testimony on behalf of a man sentenced to prison after his gun
malfunctioned now has challenged the feds to go ahead and confiscate one
of his own products.
"Your suggestion for forfeiture of company property is an excellent
solution to this most unfortunate controversy. The initiation of
forfeiture proceedings by ATF against the firearm serial number V1, will
afford the op****tunity for both parties to be heard and will provide a
fair and equitable determination of the issues while preserving all
processes that are due for both parties," Len Savage, owner of Historic
Arms LLC, wrote in a do***ent prepared for the federal Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
<http://www.atf.treas.gov/press/contacts.htm>
"Accordingly, the company awaits notice of seizure of the property and
the institution of forfeiture proceedings. Historic Arms LLC requests
that this is done without delay. You will be notified without delay of
the company decisions for proceeding with forfeiture action upon receipt
of notice," he wrote in the letter, a copy of which was forwarded to WND.
The dispute is over a part he submitted to the agency that he is
proposing for an existing line of legal machine guns in the U.S. The
part would convert the weapons to operate with ammunition that costs 1
or 2 cents per shell, instead of 25 cents or more.
Such devices, he told WND, are not uncommon.
Savage said he submitted the part to the BATFE, even though it
technically was not a gun, and was stunned to get a response that not
only was his repair part a gun, it was a machine gun, and he had only
hours to "register" it properly.
And all it took was some metal, a length of chain, some duct tape and
some plastic wire ties for the federal inspectors to make his gun part
operate in that fa****on, he said he was told.
"The materials [BATFE] added converted the firearm submitted by Historic
Arms, LLC into a machine gun; therefore, the materials constitute a
machine gun receiver, a machine gun, or a conversion device," Savage
responded to John Spencer, chief of the agency's Firearms Technology
Branch, in a letter about the situation.
Reviewing the agency's modifications to his gun part that allowed it to
fire automatically, Savage agreed. Sure, he said, that's what happens
when you add the components of an automatic weapon to any part such as
his.
"If the criteria FTB applied to the testing of our latest submission was
applied to testing the many caliber conversion uppers that are sold at
retail with no restrictions, such as the .22 long rifle MAC upper made
by 'Flemming,' (1) all of them would fire in fully automatic mode until
the ammunition supply was exhausted, (2) there would be no way for the
shooter to stop fire," he wrote.
Now the BATFE has responded to Savage's request for a review and
re-classification of his gun part.
"AFT stands by the criteria and methods used to classify your firearm as
a machine gun because it is designed to shoot automatically more than
one shot, without manual reloading, buy a single function of the
trigger," the letter from Spencer said.
"Additionally, it has the design features of a machine gun and, even if
the qualifying features were removed, it would be readily restorable to
shoot automatically as a machine gun. For these reasons, AFT will not
grant your request for an alternative classification. No further
evaluation is necessary, and none will be conducted for classification
purposes," the letter said.
A BATFE official told WND today he could not comment on the situation
because such disputes are considered confidential.
Savage told WND that he got the letter yesterday, and was given until
today to get the firearm registered as a machine gun. However, his
letter in response to the BATFE made clear he wasn't going to do that.
"Your claim that it was improperly registered based on your use and
addition of separate devices not submitted by the company, that are NFA
firearms themselves, conversion devices, is self serving and specious,"
he wrote.
"With all due respect … the firearm now in your possession was designed
by the company with specific intent to prevent it from being readily
converted to shoot more than one shot with a single function of the
trigger, your use of a separate conversion device in testing proves
this," he said.
"It is axiomatic that one must completely ignore the plain meaning of
the verb 'restore' to accept your interpretation of the 'readily
restorable' phrase as it appears in your letter. It raises the
metaphysical question of whether a thing that never existed or never has
been can be restored," he said.
Savage earlier told WND
<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69668>
he works with
classic and historic firearms but also with designing gun components for
various makers. His current proposal was a part that would have allowed
the use of a cheaper ammunition in an existing class of machine guns in
the U.S., which are used by police and military agents.
He alleges he's being targeted by the BATFE because of his testimony
against the government when David Olofson of Berlin, Wis., was on trial
for loaning to an acquaintance a gun that misfired.
His testimony in the Olofson case
<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68590>
harshly
criticized the government's weapons testing procedures. In that case,
the defendant was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in jail for
loaning a rifle that misfired, letting off three bullets at one time.
The government then classified it a machine gun, and convicted Olofson
of "transferring" such a weapon. He surrendered to federal authorities
just a few weeks ago to begin serving his term, prompting the Gun Owners
of America <http://www.gunowners.org>
to issue a warning about the
owner's liability should any semi-automatic weapon ever misfire.
"A gun that malfunctions is not a machine gun," Larry Pratt, executive
director of GOA, said. "What the [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives] has done in the Olofson case has set a
precedent that could make any of the millions of Americans that own
semi-automatic firearms suddenly the owner [of] an unregistered machine
gun at the moment the gun malfunctions."
When U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert
<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65455>
imposed the
sentence, a commentary in Guns Magazine
<http://gunsmagazine.com/DGR0708.html>
said, "It didn't matter the rifle
in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that
it did not have an M16 bolt carrier … that it did not show any signs of
machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few
years back."
"It didn't matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate
automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer
type. It didn't even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not
im****tant to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted
today," the magazine said. "What mattered was the government's position
that none of the above was relevant because '[T]here's no indication it
makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and
it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it's a machine
gun.'
"No matter what the cause."
Savage told WND shortly after the trial one of the government witnesses
against Olofson within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives <http://www.atf.treas.gov/press/contacts.htm>
was transferred
to a position of overseeing Savage's work.
At an online forum run by David Codrea on weapons issues,
<http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/07/duct-tape-plastic-ties-and-chains.html>
the comments were one-sided.
"Uh-oh. I have plastic ties and duct tape, and a semi-auto rifle. There
may be an old chain somewhere in the yard or the basement," one
contributor said.
Savage, who holds a federal license to make guns of all types, said,
"This is what they do to anybody who speaks about against them."
He said even the agency's offer in its most recent letter could be
viewed as suspicious.
"What is noteworthy is ... contained in the last paragraph: 'Although
the time to register this firearm is past ... AFT is allowing you [to
register it now],'" he told WND.
"AFT acknowledges that this would be an unlawful act. Not [to] mention
the Notice of manufacture ATF form 2 that was sent in April is 'executed
under the penalties of perjury,'" he continued. "In short it would be
improper [unlawful] for me to accept AFT terms. It was a trap in hopes I
would take their advice, then I get charged with perjury, false
statements, and other unlawful acts."
|
