United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

January 1999 CIVILIAN

MARKSMANSHIP

PROGRAM

Corporation Needs to

Fully Comply With the

Law on Sales of Firearms

GAO/NSIAD-99-41

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-281768 

January 12, 1999

The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg

United States Senate

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney

House of Representatives

This report responds to your request regarding the Civilian Marksmanship

Program (CMP), which until 1996 was administered by the Department of

the Army. As required by the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense

Authorization Act, the program was to be transitioned from the Army to

the private, nonprofit Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and

Firearms Safety, which was established by this law.1

 The program is

designed to promote and monitor marksmanship training through a system

of affiliated clubs and to sponsor marksmanship competitions.2

 As part of

these activities, the Corporation sells certain surplus military firearms to

the affiliated clubs and their members. In response to your request, we

determined (1) whether the program’s conversion to a private corporation

and the Corporation’s subsequent firearms sales were conducted in

accordance with the 1996 act, (2) the types and value of federal support

provided to the Corporation, and (3) the types and number of firearms the

Army transferred to the Corporation and was storing for potential transfer.

In August 1998, we provided information you requested regarding the

Army’s investigation of alleged criminal activity within the CMP when it was

an Army program.3

Results in Brief The Army and the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and

Firearms Safety completed the transition of the CMP to the Corporation on

September 30, 1996, in accordance with the 1996 act. The 1996 act

authorized the Corporation to sell firearms but did not specify any

external oversight to ensure that the Corporation’s firearms sales

complied with the act. The Corporation has not routinely ensured that it

complied with the requirements of the 1996 act in its firearms sales to

individuals. On the basis of a random sample of the 6,400 M1 Garand rifle

1

Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act, title XVI of P.L. 104-106

(Feb. 10, 1996) (“the act”).

2

Under section 1612(b) of P.L. 104-106, the Corporation is directed to give priority under the CMP to

activities that benefit firearms safety, training, and competition for youth and that reach as many youth

participants as possible.

3

Army Investigation of Civilian Marksmanship Program (GAO/OSI-98-14R, Aug. 18, 1998).

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

sales between July 1997 and August 1998, we estimate that the

Corporation sold between 1,200 and 2,200 M1 Garands without adhering to

its own procedures that were designed to ensure that the purchasers were

not convicted of felonies, were U.S. citizens, and were members of a

Corporation-affiliated club.

The Army and other defense agencies had provided more than $19 million

in support to the Corporation as of September 30, 1998. More than

$17.5 million of that support was authorized by the 1996 act to be provided

without reimbursement. For support provided on a reimbursable basis,

Corporation officials told us the Corporation reimbursed the Army and

other defense organizations more than $1 million for such things as the

inspection, repair, and shipping of firearms. However, additional support,

including obtaining background investigations of prospective gun buyers,

was provided to the Corporation at a cost of more than $440,000 but was

not specifically referred to in the act and was not reimbursed by the

Corporation. Also, the Secretary of the Army has not prescribed

regulations relating to the logistical support to be provided to the

Corporation and reimbursement for that support, even though the 1996 act

required the Secretary to do so. Army headquarters officials told us

existing regulations governing support to outside organizations were

considered sufficient to cover the support to the Corporation.

Notwithstanding that view, several Army officials told us they were

uncertain as to what support they should be providing and how to arrange

for reimbursement from the Corporation for expenses incurred by the

Army.

As of September 30, 1998, the Army had transferred more than 56,000

firearms to the Corporation, including M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M14s, 

.22 caliber rifles, and pistols. Firearms transferred but not sold are stored

by the Corporation. Under section 1615 of the act, the Secretary of the

Army was required to transfer to the Corporation all firearms under the

control of the Army’s CMP Director on February 9, 1996, including M1

Garand and .22 caliber rifles stored at the Anniston Army Depot in

Anniston, Alabama. These firearms were to be transferred as and when

necessary to enable the Corporation to issue, loan, or sell them in

accordance with the act. At transition, the Army transferred to the

Corporation all of the required firearms except those at Anniston. As of

September 30, 1998, the Army was storing more than 230,000 M1 Garands,

over 35,000 .22 caliber rifles, and more than 4,000 other firearms at

Anniston for potential transfer to the Corporation. At that time, the Army

and the Corporation were negotiating a new memorandum of

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

understanding that would make any of these firearms that were surplus to

Army requirements available for transfer to the Corporation. Army

officials told us that some of these firearms were not at Anniston under

CMP control on February 9, 1996. Should the Army decide to transfer

firearms that were not under CMP control on February 9, 1996, legislative

authority other than section 1615 of the act would be needed.

Background The CMP originated in 1903 with the establishment of the National Board

for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, which advised the Secretary of War.

The general purpose of the program was to encourage individuals to

develop marksmanship skills to prepare them in the event that they were

called upon to serve during wartime. Congress directed the Department of

Defense (DOD) to assume management of the CMP, including authorizing

the detail of a Marine or Army officer as director of civilian marksmanship

and the detail of Army members to provide weapons instruction to

civilians and rifle clubs. The Secretary of the Army was required to provide

for such things as (1) the operation and maintenance of rifle ranges,

(2) the promotion of firearms practice and the conduct of matches and

competitions, and (3) the sale of firearms to affiliated gun clubs that

provide firearms training and to U.S. citizens over 18 years of age who are

members of those clubs.

In response to a request from the then House Armed Services Committee,

we issued a 1990 report on the CMP’s mission, purpose, usefulness, and

cost.4

 We concluded that the Army’s CMP was of limited value because,

among other things, the CMP’s objectives and goals were not linked to

Army mobilization and training plans. We also reported that the Army’s

proposed CMP budget for fiscal years 1990-94 was about $5 million a year.

The Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act required the CMP

to be transitioned from a DOD appropriated fund activity to a nonprofit

corporation that was established by this act.

The act required the Secretary of the Army to transfer to the Corporation

all firearms and ammunition under the control of the Army’s CMP Director

on February 9, 1996, and to transfer funds derived from sales programs

and various other sources. In addition, the 1996 act authorized the

Corporation, as the Army previously had been authorized, to sell firearms

to U.S. citizens. Under the act, the Corporation was authorized to sell

firearms to individuals who (1) have not been convicted of a felony, (2) are

4

Military Preparedness: Army’s Civilian Marksmanship Program Is of Limited Value

(GAO/NSIAD-90-171, May 23, 1990).

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

U.S. citizens over 18 years of age, and (3) are members of

Corporation-affiliated gun clubs. Also, the Corporation was prohibited

from selling firearms to individuals who had been convicted of firearms

violations under 18 U.S.C. 922; these violations include knowingly shipping

or transporting stolen firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign

commerce. The 1996 act also provided that the Corporation’s sales are

subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws. These laws include,

among others, provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibit

certain categories of persons from purchasing firearms.5

To facilitate the transition of the CMP from the Army to the Corporation,

the 1996 act authorized and directed the Secretary of the Army to take a

number of actions. For example, the act authorized the Secretary to

provide specific support to the program, such as the storage of firearms,

without reimbursement by the Corporation. The act also authorized the

Secretary to provide other logistical support to the CMP, such as support

for competitions and other activities, with reimbursement from the

Corporation for incremental direct costs incurred by the Army to provide

such support. Also, the act required the Secretary of the Army to prescribe

implementing regulations for carrying out this support.

Program Transition

Met Statutory

Requirements

The transition of the CMP from the Army to the Corporation was completed

on September 30, 1996, in accordance with the Corporation for the

Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act. The Secretary of the

Army transferred (1) all property under the control of the Director of

Civilian Marksmanship, the Civilian Marksmanship Support Detachment,

and the National Match Fund, including office equipment, targets and

frames, vehicles, supplies, and appliances; (2) control of the leased

property that had been occupied by the Civilian Marksmanship Support

Detachment in Port Clinton, Ohio; and (3) all funds available from sales

programs and fees to the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle

Practice and all funds in a nonappropriated fund account known as the

National Match Fund. These transfers were completed by September 30,

1996. Also, the Secretary of the Army, as required, appointed on July 12,

1996, the Corporation’s initial Board of Directors. As required, the

Corporation’s Board of Directors appointed in July 1996 a Director of

Civilian Marksmanship to be responsible for the daily operations of the

CMP. The CMP began operations under the Corporation on October 1, 1996.

5

These include any person who (1) has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for

more than a year, (2) is a fugitive from justice, (3) is an unlawful user of any controlled substance,

(4) is an adjudged mental defective, (5) is subject to certain restraining orders related to domestic

violence, or (6) has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (18 U.S.C. 922(g)).

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

Corporation Policies

Inadequate, and

Procedures to Ensure

Firearms Sales

Comply With the Act

Not Followed

The Corporation has not routinely ensured that its sales of firearms to

individuals complied with the requirements of the 1996 act. The

Corporation could make sales under the act to purchasers that (1) had not

been convicted of a felony or otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm,

(2) were U.S. citizens over 18 years of age, and (3) were members of gun

clubs affiliated with the Corporation. The act also required the

Corporation to establish procedures to obtain a criminal records check for

purchasers with appropriate federal and state authorities. Corporation

officials told us that they had policies and procedures in place to ensure

that the requirements of the 1996 act for firearms sales to individuals were

met. We reviewed these policies and procedures and found that in some

cases the Corporation’s policies were not adequate to ensure that the

purchasers met the requirements of the act. In other cases, the

Corporation did not adhere to its own procedures that could have ensured

that the purchasers met the requirements. As a result, the Corporation sold

firearms to individuals without ensuring that purchasers were not

convicted of a felony or otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm, were

U.S. citizens, and were members of Corporation-affiliated clubs.

Corporation Firearms Sold

and on Loan

According to Corporation officials, the Corporation sold 22,584 firearms in

the 2-year period between October 1, 1996, and September 30, 1998. Of

these firearms, the Corporation sold 16,637 (74 percent) to individuals and

5,947 (26 percent) to some of its 1,033 affiliated clubs. Over 72 percent of

all firearms sold were M1 Garands, a World War II era semiautomatic rifle,

for which the Corporation as of September 1998 charged from $400 to

$750 each, depending on the rifle’s condition. Figure 1 depicts the 

.30 caliber M1 Garand.

Figure 1: M1 Garand Semiautomatic Rifle

Source: Small Arms of the World, 11th ed. (Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1997), p. 532.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

Regarding firearms on loan, Corporation officials said that 905 M14s

remained on loan to certain affiliated clubs as of September 30, 1998.6

These officials told us that the Army had lent the M14s to those clubs

when it operated the program but that the Corporation is not lending any

additional firearms because of liability issues. Table 1 depicts the number

and types of firearms sold by the Corporation.

Table 1: Firearms Sold by the

Corporation During Fiscal Years 1997

and 1998

Firearm Sold to individuals Sold to clubs Total

M1 Garanda 14,947 1,392 16,339

M1Da 1,379 0 1,379

M1 Carbinea 0 597 597

M1903A3a 39 0 39

.22 caliber 272 3,278 3,550

Air rifle 0 680 680

Total 16,637 5,947 22,584

a.30 caliber rifle.

We did not review the sales of firearms to Corporation-affiliated clubs.

Many of the clubs had been established when the Army ran the CMP and

some of the data needed to determine whether procedures had been

followed either were not maintained by the Army or were indecipherable

in the microfiche files the Army provided to the Corporation.

Corporation’s Application

Policies Insufficient to

Ensure Firearms Were Sold

Only to Eligible Purchasers

The Corporation’s application policies were insufficient to ensure that it

did not sell firearms to persons who were convicted of a felony or

otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm or who were not U.S. citizens.

For example, the Corporation’s policy required a background investigation

before a firearm purchase was approved. However, Corporation policy

also allowed individual applicants to provide various documents in lieu of

a background investigation. Of the 16,637 firearms sales to individuals

during fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Corporation officials estimated that they

requested background investigations for about 8,000 applicants.

The Corporation obtained background investigations from the Defense

Security Service (DSS). DSS investigations included a name search and

fingerprint check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for felonies and

other conditions that would render an individual ineligible to purchase a

6

These rifles remain on loan only to clubs that are Corporation-affiliated state associations (one in

each state) for the use of the state rifle team.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

firearm. As is customary when DSS manages these investigations, DSS made

no assessment regarding an individual’s eligibility to purchase a firearm

but instead provided the raw results of the investigations to Corporation

employees to enable them to make this determination. However, the

Corporation had no written guidelines for its employees to use to identify

items in the DSS investigation that would disqualify individuals from

purchasing firearms.

In lieu of a DSS investigation, Corporation policy allowed applicants to

provide one of the following documents:

• a dated letter from the applicant’s security manager verifying that the

applicant is a current U.S. servicemember, government employee, or

contractor with a current U.S.-issued security clearance;

• a notarized or certified true copy of an applicant’s current military security

clearance if the applicant is active duty military;

• a letter from the chief of police or sheriff attesting to the applicant’s good

character if the applicant is a sworn law enforcement officer; or

• a notarized copy of a current concealed weapons permit.

The first two of these documents are not sufficient to determine whether

individuals were convicted of a felony or were otherwise ineligible to

purchase a firearm. Possession of a current U.S.-issued security clearance

does not mean that criminal records checks with appropriate federal and

state law enforcement agencies have been conducted recently or that

individuals were not convicted of a felony or otherwise ineligible to

purchase a firearm. DOD personnel security officials told us that some

persons with current security clearances may have had their last criminal

records checks as many as 10, 15, or even 20 years ago. Also, these

officials told us that organizations issuing security clearances have the

discretion to consider mitigating factors to individuals’ past behavior and

thus sometimes issue clearances to individuals who have, for example,

felony convictions or other criminal behavior on their records.

The Corporation’s policies also were insufficient to ensure that purchasers

were U.S. citizens. The Corporation required applicants to certify that they

were U.S. citizens and accepted as evidence of citizenship a copy of

applicants’ birth certificates, voter registration cards, proof of

naturalization, passports, or certificates of release/discharge from active

duty (DD 214). While most of these documents provide sufficient evidence

of citizenship, a certificate of release/discharge from active duty does not.

Military personnel may be either U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

because the DD 214 does not contain information on individuals’

citizenship, it does not ensure that the citizenship requirement has been

met.

Corporation Did Not

Follow Its Own Procedural

Requirements

The Corporation did not always follow its own procedural requirements

and therefore could not ensure that individuals met the statutory

requirements for the purchase of firearms. We randomly examined

samples of the Corporation’s sales records for three types of firearms sold

to individuals: M1 Garand, M1D, and .22 caliber rifles. These firearms

accounted for 99 percent of the Corporation’s firearms sales to individuals.

Based on all three random samples, we found the following:

• The Corporation sold firearms without obtaining a DSS background

investigation for some purchasers who submitted no substitute documents

as evidence that a qualifying background investigation had been

conducted. Additionally, investigations were not obtained for some

individuals because they had previously purchased firearms through the

CMP. The Corporation neither verified that an investigation had been

conducted for the prior purchase, some as many as 5 years before, nor

conducted a search to account for any prohibited activity in the

intervening years. The Corporation also accepted state firearms licenses

other than concealed weapons permits in lieu of a background

investigation without evidence that an investigation was conducted as a

part of issuing the licenses.

• The Corporation sold firearms to individuals who provided no proof of

citizenship or who provided drivers’ licenses as proof of citizenship.

• The Corporation sold firearms to persons who did not submit any proof of

membership in a Corporation-affiliated gun club or submitted an expired

membership card or a membership card with no name.

Table 2 shows how often the applicants in our three randomly selected

samples did not provide an item the Corporation’s policy allowed as proof

of meeting the requirements for a firearm purchase. For each type of

firearm sale we sampled, documentation was insufficient to ensure the

requirements were met. For example, 37 (27 percent) of the 136 M1

Garand sales we reviewed were insufficiently documented. Projecting our

sample results to the approximately 6,400 M1 Garand sales over the

14-month period from which we sampled, we estimate that the

Corporation sold between 1,200 and 2,200 M1 Garands to individuals

without adhering to its procedures designed to ensure that purchasers met

the requirements of the 1996 act. We also randomly sampled M1D and 

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

.22 caliber rifle sales. Relative to the overall rate for the M1 Garand sales,

proportionately fewer M1D and .22 caliber rifle sales met the

Corporation’s requirements for ensuring compliance with the act. We

could not project the results of our samples for M1D and .22 caliber rifle

sales to a universe of those sales because of our small sample sizes.

Table 2: Purchases the Corporation Approved Without Following Its Procedures to Ensure Compliance With the 1996 Act

M1 Garand

(Sample size 136)

M1D

(Sample size 29)

.22 Caliber

(Sample size 38)

Requirement not assureda Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

U.S. citizenship 6 4 10 34 13 34

Club membership 13 10 8 28 8 21

No felony conviction or other ineligibility 26 19 11 38 22 58

Purchases for which Corporation failed to ensure

compliance with at least one requirement 37 27 12 41 23 61

aSome purchases did not meet several requirements

Regarding resales, Corporation officials told us that each individual

purchaser of a firearm is required to sign a statement that the firearm is for

his or her personal use. These officials told us that, practically speaking,

however, they could not control the resale of firearms. According to Army

and Corporation officials, the Army’s CMP program allowed an individual

only one lifetime purchase of each type of firearm. The Army restriction

may have limited the number of firearms available for resale. In contrast,

the Corporation has adopted a policy that allows an individual to annually

purchase two M1 Garands and one of each other type of firearm sold to

individuals by the Corporation.

No External Oversight

to Ensure Corporation

Firearms Sales

Comply With the 1996

Act

The 1996 act authorized the Corporation to sell firearms but did not

specify any external oversight to ensure compliance of these sales with the

1996 act. Thus, the Corporation is not subject to the licensing and

oversight requirements of firearms dealers who are regulated by the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) under the Gun Control Act

of 1968. Specifically, these dealers must file an application with the ATF,

which reviews the applications and inspects applicants to determine their

qualifications for licenses. License holders are then subject to periodic

compliance inspections by the ATF. Although not regulated by the ATF, the

Corporation is subject to Internal Revenue Service requirements

applicable to tax-exempt organizations, including the reporting of its gross

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

income, receipts, and disbursements. Corporation officials told us that to

comply with this requirement, the Corporation obtains an independent

financial audit each year.

While the act required the Army to provide firearms to the Corporation, it

did not authorize the Army to oversee the Corporation’s firearms sales.

However, a 1996 memorandum of understanding between the Army and

the Corporation requires the Corporation to certify in writing that sales

have met statutory requirements before the Army ships firearms to a

purchaser. According to Army and Corporation officials, however, the

Army has never denied a request from the Corporation to ship a firearm,

even though the Corporation has not provided the certifications.

Corporation officials said that it was logistically impossible to certify every

firearm sale in writing. Army officials said that the Corporation is solely

responsible for ensuring that firearms recipients have met the statutory

requirements.

DOD Provides

Continued Support to

the CMP

DOD provided more than $19 million in support to the Corporation during

the transition and the 2 years of the Corporation’s existence. More than

$17.5 million of that support was authorized by the 1996 act to be provided

without reimbursement. This included about $7.7 million in assets

provided to the Corporation by the Army during the transition of the CMP

as required by the 1996 act. These assets included funds, firearms,

ammunition, trophies, equipment, and vehicles (see table 3).

Table 3: Property Transferred to the

Corporation at Transition of the CMP Dollars in thousands

Type of support Value

Funds $3,800a

Firearms 1,094b,c

Ammunition 2,172c

Trophies, equipment, and vehicles 614c

Total $7,680

aAs reported in Army transition documents.

bThis figure represents the value of 6,512 firearms transferred to the Corporation.

cAs reported by the Army Audit Agency on September 27, 1996.

Since the transition, DOD has provided unreimbursed support worth more

than $10.3 million to the Corporation through September 30, 1998. Most of

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

the support provided (more than $9.9 million) was specifically authorized

by the 1996 act to be provided on a nonreimbursable basis. This support

included firearms, ammunition, and repair parts. According to Army

officials, providing these items to the Corporation actually resulted in a

cost savings because the alternatives were either to incur costs to

continue storing the items or to incur costs to demilitarize them. We were

unable to determine the total cost of unreimbursed DOD support because

DOD officials did not know the value of some items of support, such as

firearms storage. In addition, according to Corporation officials, as of

September 30, 1998, DOD had provided more than $1 million in support for

which it was reimbursed. This support included the inspection, repair, and

shipping of firearms.

The 1996 act does not specifically refer to other DOD support that is being

provided without reimbursement. For example, DSS has provided

background investigations for the Corporation since October 1, 1996.

Based on the Corporation’s estimate that it had requested 8,000

investigations in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, DSS officials estimated that the

value of the investigations was $440,000. Additionally, since October 1997,

the Army has allowed the Corporation to use a building at the Anniston

Army Depot. The Corporation uses this building for office space and for

workspace to prepare some of the firearms for shipment to purchasers.

Army officials told us that although the Corporation has paid for the direct

incremental costs of utilities, police services, and refuse collection and

disposal, the building itself (a 13,551 square-foot warehouse) has been

provided to the Corporation rent free. Table 4 shows the value of

unreimbursed direct support provided to the Corporation since October 1,

1996.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

Table 4: Value of Unreimbursed DOD

Support Provided to the Corporation

(Oct. 1, 1996, Through Sept. 30, 1998) 

Dollars in thousands

Type of support Value

Specifically authorized without reimbursement by the 1996 act

Firearms $5,702a,b

Ammunition 3,833b

Repair parts 211b,c

Surplus material and equipment 37b

Support for national matches (Army Reserve personnel) 124

Storage of firearms Not knownd

Subtotal 9,907

Not specifically referred to by the 1996 act

Background checks 440

Storage of ammunition and other supplies Not knownd

Building at Anniston Army Depot for Corporation use Not knownd

Subtotal 440

Total $10,347

aThis represents the value of 49,906 firearms transferred after transition.

bBased on Army Master Data File values.

cDoes not include the value of about 500 telescopes and cases. Army officials told us they did not

have records on the value of these items.

dArmy officials told us they did not know the value of these items.

The Secretary of the Army did not issue regulations relating to the

logistical support to be provided to the Corporation and reimbursement

for that support as required by the act. The Corporation has separate

written agreements with several Army and other DOD organizations, such

as Anniston Army Depot and the Defense Logistics Agency’s Defense

Reutilization Marketing Service, that provide the Corporation support.

However, we found inconsistencies in and confusion among officials

responsible for providing such support. Some Army officials responsible

for providing support told us they were unsure of what support they

should be providing to the Corporation and how to arrange for

reimbursement of expenses. For example, the Corporation pays

administrative expenses for Army personnel involved with the transfer of

firearms from the Army to the Corporation but is not charged

administrative expenses for Army personnel involved with the transfer of

ammunition. According to Army headquarters officials, new regulations

for support to the CMP were not prescribed because they believed existing

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

regulations pertaining to the support of outside organizations were

sufficient to cover support to the Corporation.7

Army Transferred

Firearms to the

Corporation and

Holds More for

Potential Future

Transfer

As of September 30, 1998, the Army transferred more than 56,000 firearms

to the Corporation. Of this number, the Army transferred about 6,500

firearms at the time of transition, including 401 M16s that the Corporation

returned and plans to borrow as needed. Over the 2-year period since the

transition, almost 50,000 firearms were transferred to the Corporation. All

totaled, more than a dozen different types of firearms have been

transferred, including M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M14s, .22 caliber rifles,

and pistols. As of September 30, 1998, the Army was storing about 270,000

additional M1 Garands, .22 caliber rifles, M1 Carbines, and other firearms

for potential transfer.

Table 5 shows the types and numbers of firearms transferred to the

Corporation as of September 30, 1998.

Table 5: Types and Numbers of

Firearms Transferred to the

Corporation (Through Sept. 30, 1998) 

Transferred to the Corporation

Firearms At transition FY 1996-98 Total

.30 caliber rifle

M1 Garand 1,216 28,288 29,504

M1C 0 74 74

M1D 0 2,385 2,385

M1 National Match 72 0 72

M1 Carbine 200 1,126 1,326

M1A1 9 0 9

M14 1,314 0 1,314

M16 401 0 401a

M1903A3 4 622 626

M1903A4 0 411 411

.22 caliber rifle 2,614 17,000 19,614

7.62mm M700 1 0 1

Pellet 1 0 1

Shotgun 4 0 4

Pistol 676 0 676

Total 6,512 49,906 56,418

aThe Corporation returned the M16s to the Army and plans to borrow them as needed.

7

Notwithstanding our request, the Army did not identify these regulations during our review.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

The majority of the 6,512 firearms transferred at transition (4,581) were on

loan to CMP-affiliated clubs, while the remainder (1,931) were under the

control of the Civilian Marksmanship Support Detachment in Ohio. Army

officials told us that all of the firearms transferred after the transition were

stored at Anniston Army Depot and were deemed excess by the Army. The

Army transferred firearms either directly to the Corporation or to

recipients designated by the Corporation.

As of September 30, 1998, the Army had transferred 56,418 firearms to the

Corporation, including M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M14s, .22 caliber rifles,

and pistols. Under section 1615 of the act, the Secretary of the Army was

required to transfer to the Corporation those firearms under the control of

the Army’s CMP Director on February 9, 1996, including all M1 Garand and

.22 caliber rifles stored at Anniston. These firearms were to be transferred

as and when necessary to enable the Corporation to issue, loan, or sell

them in accordance with the act. At transition, the Army transferred to the

Corporation all of the required firearms except those at Anniston. On

September 30, 1996, the Army and the Corporation signed a memorandum

of understanding in which the parties agreed that approximately 167,000

M1 Garands and 17,000 .22 caliber rifles were at Anniston under CMP

control on February 9, 1996.

As of September 30, 1998, the Army was storing more than 230,000 

M1 Garands, over 35,000 .22 caliber rifles, and over 4,000 other firearms at

Anniston for potential transfer to the Corporation. At that time, the Army

and the Corporation were negotiating a new memorandum of

understanding that could make these firearms available to the

Corporation. However, Army officials told us that some of these firearms

were not at Anniston under CMP control on February 9, 1996. Should the

Army decide to transfer firearms from Anniston that were not under CMP

control on February 9, 1996, legislative authority other than section 1615

of the act will be needed.

Table 6 shows the types, numbers, and values of firearms stored at

Anniston Army Depot for potential transfer to the Corporation as of

September 30, 1998. Corporation officials said that the Army is their only

source of firearms.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

Table 6: Firearms Stored for Potential

Transfer to the Corporation (as of

Sept. 30, 1998) 

Firearm Quantity Valuea

M1 Garand 230,590 $21,744,637

M1C 1 220

M1D 29 7,975

M1 Carbine 3,052 234,699

M1903A3 1,016 108,712

.22 caliber rifle 35,056 8,366,176

Total 269,744 $30,462,419

aBased on Army Master Data File values.

Conclusions When Congress authorized the transfer of the CMP to a private, nonprofit

corporation established by the act, it established specific requirements for

the Corporation’s sale of firearms, for continued Army support of the

program, and for the number of firearms to be transferred to the

Corporation. To ensure that these requirements are met, oversight of

Corporation sales of firearms and more specific guidance describing the

logistical support to be provided are needed.

Recommendation We recommend that the Secretary of the Army issue regulations, as

required by the 1996 act, addressing the logistical support to be provided

to the Corporation and the policies for obtaining reimbursement from the

Corporation for such support.

Matter for

Consideration

When Congress established the Corporation as a private nonprofit

organization, it did not specify any external oversight to ensure that the

Corporation fully comply with the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle

Practice and Firearms Safety Act of 1996 in its sales of firearms. However,

because the federal government established the Corporation and

continues to provide firearms and other support, the federal government

has an interest in ensuring that Corporation assets are being appropriately

safeguarded. Therefore, Congress may wish to consider amending the act

to require that the Corporation’s annual financial audit include an

assessment of, and report on, its compliance with the 1996 act. Such an

assessment should include an examination of the Corporation’s relevant

internal controls. In addition, Congress may wish to require that the

auditor’s report be provided to Congress.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

DOD Comments and

Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our

recommendation in principle. DOD stated that existing regulations

prescribe guidance to address the logistical support provided by the Army

and the policies for obtaining reimbursement for such support. DOD further

stated that these regulations were being reviewed for appropriateness and

would be provided to the Corporation, along with the memorandum of

understanding, in response to the legislative requirement for regulations.

DOD stated that existing regulations prescribe guidance to address

logistical support provided by the Army. However, DOD did not assert that

these regulations were appropriate to address the unique type of logistical

support that the Army provides to the Corporation. Instead, DOD stated

that they were currently reviewing these regulations for appropriateness.

As noted in our draft report, notwithstanding our request, DOD did not

identify these regulations until after it received our draft report. Therefore,

we were unable to determine their appropriateness. Our review found that

some Army personnel responsible for providing logistical support to the

Corporation were unsure of what support they should be providing and

how to arrange for reimbursement from the Corporation for such support.

Additionally, we found inconsistent arrangements for providing support

and reimbursement.

Our continuing concern is that Army personnel involved with providing

support to the Corporation have at their disposal adequate guidance for

their dealings with the Corporation. Therefore, we maintain that the Army

needs to issue regulations, as required by the 1996 act, addressing the

specific type of logistical support to be provided to the Corporation and

the policies for obtaining reimbursement from the Corporation for such

support. If, during the Army’s review of existing regulations, it finds that

parts of these regulations prove appropriate, the Army should make its

personnel aware of the specific parts that apply to the Corporation. If

existing regulations fall short of fully addressing the logistical support to

be provided to the Corporation, we believe the Army should issue

regulations to ensure full conformance with the 1996 act.

DOD’s comments are presented in their entirety in appendix I. DOD also

provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

Corporation

Comments and Our

Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Corporation concurred

that improvements were needed and noted that based on our findings it

has already taken or is taking action to remedy the deficiencies we

identified. For example, the Corporation stated that it has completely

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

revised its policies for background checks and will soon discontinue its

reliance on the Defense Security Service. The Corporation also stated that

in the future all applications for firearm purchases will be directed to the

newly-established National Instant Criminal Check System, with the

exception of those individuals exempted by the Brady Act who have

demonstrably been cleared by other means. The Corporation observed

that our report makes no reference to the remedial actions taken by the

Corporation. We have not commented on these actions because they were

taken after our review and we did not evaluate them or their impact on

CMP operations.

The Corporation agreed that its procedures were inadequate and were not

always adhered to, although the Corporation believes that we overstated

the significance of these deficiencies. Based on our random sample of the

Corporation’s sales records for three types of firearms, we reported

deficiencies that resulted because the Corporation did not always adhere

to its own procedures. We believe these deficiencies were properly

characterized.

The Corporation agreed that ongoing oversight of its operations would be

beneficial. The Corporation further stated that it has retained a firm of

independent certified public accountants to perform an annual audit,

which will encompass a review of its sales program, including an

evaluation of the Corporation’s compliance with the enabling legislation

and an assessment of its internal controls. We believe that such oversight

will help to ensure that the Corporation’s firearms sales fully comply with

the law.

In addition to its general comments, the Corporation submitted three

detailed comments. First, the Corporation stated that we did not

accurately describe its mission. It stated that Congress has given the

Corporation a considerably broader statutory objective. Accordingly, the

Corporation stated that its declared mission envisions “fostering rifle

marksmanship and firearms safety and other types of training to America’s

youth and other qualified citizens, emphasizing safety, discipline and

dedication to the nation, state and community.” We believe that our report

accurately describes the functions of the CMP as set out in section 1612(a)

of the 1996 act. We have, however, added in our report a reference to

section 1612(b) of the act, which discusses the youth-related priorities the

Corporation is statutorily required to consider in carrying out its mission.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

Second, the Corporation stated that our findings regarding the

Corporation’s failures to adhere to its procedures are overstated and no

longer applicable to CMP operations. Our randomly selected sample of

Corporation sales records for three types of firearms sold to individuals

showed that the Corporation sold firearms without adhering to its

procedures designed to ensure that purchasers had not been convicted of

felonies, were U.S. citizens, and were members of a CMP-affiliated club. We

continue to believe that the results of our three samples were properly

characterized. Regarding the Corporation’s recent procedural changes, we

commend the Corporation for its willingness to respond to our findings

immediately.

Finally, the Corporation stated that we greatly exaggerated the value of

federal support provided to the Corporation by using the Army Master

Data File values to determine the value of the rifles, ammunition, and parts

that were transferred or were being held by the Army for potential transfer

to the Corporation. More specifically, the Corporation stated that the

rifles, ammunition, and parts provided by the Army were obsolete,

militarily worthless, and would be reduced to scrap at further cost to the

Army. We believe that the Army Master Data File values are valid for

determining the value of the items transferred or being held for potential

transfer to the Corporation. Additionally, we noted in our draft report that,

according to Army officials, providing these items to the Corporation

actually resulted in a cost savings to the Army because the Army’s

alternatives were either to incur costs to continue storing the items or to

incur costs to demilitarize them.

The Corporation’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.

The Corporation also provided technical comments, which were

incorporated as appropriate.

Scope and

Methodology

To evaluate whether the CMP’s transition from the Army to the private

Corporation was conducted in accordance with the Corporation for the

Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act, we identified the

transition requirements stipulated in that act. We also interviewed Army

and Corporation officials and examined their records to compare

transition actions with the requirements of the act.

To determine the statutory requirements regarding sales of firearms, we

reviewed the act and other applicable firearms statutes. We also

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

interviewed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms officials to discuss

these statutes.

To assess the Corporation’s compliance with the 1996 act in regard to

firearms sales, we randomly sampled firearms sales of three of the four

types of firearms sold by the Corporation to individuals—M1 Garands,

M1Ds, and .22 caliber rifles. Because of the small number of such sales, we

did not sample any of the 39 M1903A3s sold. For the M1 Garand, the

sampling error is plus or minus 8 percent or less with a 95-percent

confidence level. The sample was taken from a universe of approximately

6,400 applications approved for firearm sales between July 1997 and

August 1998. We excluded from our universe applications processed from

October 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997, to (1) minimize the possibility that

the Army processed parts of some applications and (2) provide the

Corporation with time to standardize its procedures after taking over the

program. We stopped sampling M1D and .22 caliber sales records when

the Corporation official who approved the applications confirmed that the

application procedures had not been strictly followed; thus, we did not

calculate sampling errors for the M1D and .22 caliber sales.

To determine the type and number of firearms the Corporation sold to its

affiliated clubs and to individuals, we interviewed Corporation officials

and obtained Corporation records of sales. To determine the type and

number of firearms the Corporation had on loan, we interviewed

Corporation officials.

We did not review the sales of firearms to Corporation-affiliated clubs

because many of the clubs had been established when the Army ran the

CMP. In addition, some of the data needed to determine whether

procedures had been followed either were not maintained by the Army or

were indecipherable in the microfiche files provided to the Corporation by

the Army.

We were unable to review the information resulting from DSS background

investigations, which the Corporation factored into its decisions to

approve applicants for firearms purchases. As required by DSS, the results

of each investigation were destroyed once the Corporation made its

decision.

To determine viable alternatives for providing oversight of Corporation

firearms sales, we interviewed officials from the Corporation and the

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

Army. We also discussed this issue with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms.

To identify the value of federal assets transferred to the Corporation at the

time of transition, we reviewed an Army report on the assets held by the

CMP before the program’s transition and the supporting workpapers for

that report. We also reviewed the Army’s files of the transfer.8

To determine the continuing cost of the program to the federal

government, we interviewed officials of the Army, Defense Logistics

Agency, Defense Security Service, and the Corporation. We also examined

documents they provided related to unreimbursed support for the

Corporation and its cost.

To determine the types and number of firearms the Army transferred to

the Corporation and has stored for potential transfer, we reviewed the

supporting workpapers to the Army report on the assets held by the CMP

before the program’s transition, Army records of transfers, and Army and

Defense Logistics Agency inventory records. We used Army Master Data

File values to determine the value of firearms transferred to the

Corporation.

We conducted our review from April to December 1998 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the

date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the

Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services; the

Secretaries of Defense and the Army; the Directors of the Defense

Logistics Agency and the Office of Management and Budget; and the

Chairman of the Board of Directors, Corporation for the Promotion of

Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. We will also make copies available to

others upon request.

8

Assets of the Civilian Marksmanship Program (Army Audit Agency, 96-312, Sept. 27, 1996).

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
B-281768 

Please call me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix III.

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

24

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Corporation for the

Promotion of Rifle

Practice and Firearms

Safety

25

Appendix III 

Major Contributors to

This Report

30

Tables Table 1: Firearms Sold by the Corporation During Fiscal Years

1997 and 1998

6

Table 2: Purchases the Corporation Approved Without Following

Its Procedures to Ensure Compliance With the 1996 Act

9

Table 3: Property Transferred to the Corporation at Transition of

the CMP

10

Table 4: Value of Unreimbursed DOD Support Provided to the

Corporation

12

Table 5: Types and Numbers of Firearms Transferred to the

Corporation

13

Table 6: Firearms Stored for Potential Transfer to the

Corporation

15

Figure Figure 1: M1 Garand Semiautomatic Rifle 5

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Contents

Abbreviations

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

CMP Civilian Marksmanship Program

DOD Department of Defense

DSS Defense Security Service

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Appendix II 

Comments From the Corporation for the

Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms

Safety

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Appendix II 

Comments From the Corporation for the

Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms

Safety

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Appendix II 

Comments From the Corporation for the

Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms

Safety

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Appendix II 

Comments From the Corporation for the

Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms

Safety

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Appendix II 

Comments From the Corporation for the

Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms

Safety

Now on pp. 2, 10-12.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Carol R. Schuster

Derek B. Stewart

Jack E. Edwards

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Richard P. Burkard

Maureen A. Murphy

(703240) Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-99-41 Civilian Markmanship Program
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100