Source: http://johnpierceesq.com/
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 11:08:05
Document Index: 23406185

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 923', '§ 921', '§ 18', '§ 18', '§ 478', '§ 922', '§ 478']

I received a call from a client last week asking this question. He wanted to start a business manufacturing cast bullets which he would then sell online and at flea markets. He was hoping that, because he was only dealing with bullets, he could avoid some or all of the regulatory burden imposed upon a completed ammunition manufacturer.
He had no intention of manufacturing any ammunition components other than cast bullets;
He had no intention of selling any ammunition components other than case bullets; and
He would simply have been manufacturing, and then selling, shaped lumps of inert metal.
Looking at it from that perspective, your initial inclination might be to conclude that he did not need to have an FFL. After all, the active components of completed ammunition are the primers and the powder, neither of which he was going to manufacture or sell.
However, the actual answer is “Yes. You do need a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to manufacture and sell cast bullets.”
“Why is this?” you ask. It is because, despite the fact that the bullet is nothing more than shaped metal, it is an ammunition component. And federal law requires you to have an FFL if you are going to ‘engage in the business of manufacturing ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution’. The specific requirement may be found in 18 U.S.C. § 923 which reads (emphasis added):
(a) No person shall engage in the business of … manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being required for each place in which the applicant is to do business, as follows:
“But wait” I hear you cry. “That says ‘ammunition’, not components.”
And you would be correct if that were where the analysis ended. But, as is often the case in statutory interpretation, one must look to the definition of terms. In this case, 18 U.S.C. § 921 provides us the definition of ‘ammunition’.
Taking these two statutes together, it is clear that bullets are included in the definition of ‘ammunition’ for purposes of licensing. But the bad news for my client didn’t end there.
We also needed to discuss ITAR registration.
ITAR stands for the International Traffic in Arms Regulations which were promulgated to implement the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA). The relevant section (emphasis added) is as follows:
As for what constitutes ‘defense articles’, 22 CFR 121.1 contains a complete listing under what is known as The United States Munitions List (USML). The relevant section is contained in Category III of the list in subsection f:
The short answer is that, those licensed to manufacture and sell cast bullets are also required to register for ITAR and pay the registration fee.
These fees and licensing requirements represent a real barrier to entry into the industry and I look forward to the day when the reach of ITAR is limited to true export items.
Having said all of that, we are still left with the fact that, as it stands today, anyone who is planning to manufacture and sell cast bullets will require both an FFL and yearly ITAR registration.
This is an understandably common question since the length of a firearm’s barrel and the overall length (OAL) of a firearm both factor into the determination of whether said firearm is regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
The ATF covers this exact topic in Chapter 2 of the NFA Handbook.
Starting with barrel length they have this to say (emphasis added):
Now that we know a permanently attached muzzle device is considered an extension of the barrel we can turn to their definition of overall length:
Some people find this definition concerning since it specifically says muzzle of the barrel but does not mention a permanently attached muzzle device as in the definition of barrel length above. However, they clearly intend it to be read as included since we see this comment later in the handbook concerning removing items from the purview of the NFA:
“For example, a shotgun with a barrel length of 15 inches is an NFA weapon. If the 15- inch barrel is removed and disposed of, the remaining firearm is not subject to the NFA because it has no barrel. Likewise, if the 15 inch barrel is modified by permanently attaching an extension such that the barrel length is at least 18 inches and the overall length of the weapon is at least 26 inches, the modified firearm is not subject to the NFA. NOTE: an acceptable method for permanently installing a barrel extension is by gas or electric steel seam welding or the use of high temperature silver solder having a flow point of 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.”
That interpretation is also in keeping with the actual federal regulation (27 CFR 479.11) which states:
“The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore.”
Finally, the ATF has issued an opinion letter which goes into much greater detail than the NFA Handbook and which specifically answers this question (See Question 4 on Page 3 below).
In summary, the length of a permanently attached muzzle device is added to both the barrel length and the OAL of a firearm for purposes of evaluating whether said firearm falls under the purview of the NFA.
Perhaps the least-understood federal firearms prohibitions are those codified at 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(9) and (g)(9).
While Virginia has its own statute which governs Assault and Battery Against a Family or Household Member (§ 18.2-57.2), the federal prohibition has a broader definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” which is found in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33).
That definition tells us:
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law; and
The term ‘element‘ in the context of criminal law is a legal term with a specific meaning. The simple version is that an ‘element’ of a particular crime is a fact that must be proven in order to secure a conviction. With this in mind, it is easy to interpret this definition as requiring a conviction under a statute which has, as an element, a requirement that the victim be ‘a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim‘.
But that isn’t how the courts interpret this statute. The Supreme Court addressed this exact issue in the 2009 case of United States v. Hayes (482 F.3d 749). They held that the statute need not include the existence of a “domestic relationship” as an element of the crime.
With that in mind, the following chart illustrates the process by which a person can evaluate whether a given conviction satisfies the federal definition (click on the image for a larger, more readable version).
So what does all this mean for Virginians?
It means that a person does not have to be convicted under Virginia’s Assault and Battery Against a Family or Household Member statute (§ 18.2-57.2) in order to be prohibited under the federal definition.
A misdemeanor conviction for any crime which involves the use (or attempted use) of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon would suffice. This might include simple assault and battery, sexual battery, unlawful wounding, or brandishing, just to name the most obvious.
However, in order for any of these to trigger the prohibition, the crime had to have been committed against one of the enumerated parties (spouse, parent, children, etc). This leads us to the obvious question of how a given misdemeanor would be documented as involving said party.
The government’s current position on the discernment of these types of ‘factual predicates’ in varied state courts (as detailed in Attorney General Opinion, Opinions from Office of Legal Counsel, Vol. 31, May 17, 2007) is that “[t]he answer to that question may be gleaned from the record of conviction or the supporting record of proceedings in the court of conviction.” They go on to say that “[p]olice reports [alone] cannot answer that question.”
So … a person in Virginia who was charged with Assault and Battery Against a Family or Household Member but who subsequently negotiated a plea agreement to simple assault might still suffer under the federal prohibition if the conviction record shows that the victim of the assault matched one of the enumerated relationships from the federal definition.
If you have any concerns that you might be in this situation, feel free to contact me for a free consultation and to discuss what we might do to verify your status.
Occasionally I will receive a call from a thoroughly confused potential client who has been denied a firearms purchase and doesn’t understand why.
They were able to honestly answer all of the questions on the ATF Form 4473 in the negative.
They have never been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
They have never been convicted of a felony.
They have never suffered from any mental health issues.
In fact, the only conviction on their record at all is a misdemeanor charge for possession of marijuana from 10 months ago. They have not used marijuana, or any other illegal drugs since, and no longer consider themselves an ‘unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance‘.
So why did this conviction cause their purchase to be denied? They honestly answered question 11e ‘No’ and, unlike other questions where there are further instructions later in the form, that is not the case with this question.
The answer can be found in 27 CFR § 478.11 which provides the following detailed guidance concerning the interpretation of the phrase ‘unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance‘ (emphasis added):
An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g.,
a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year;
Note that under this definition, mere arrests (absent convictions) are sufficient to trigger a temporary purchase prohibition if more than one occurred during the last 5 years and at least one of them occurred within the 12 months preceding the date of the attempted purchase.
The due process and constitutional issues raised by such a broad definition are concerning but outside the scope of this article.
I should also point out that there are other disqualifying criteria in the regulation which I excluded as irrelevant to this particular topic but which a prospective buyer with any substance abuse history would be wise to read.
Ultimately there are two points to take away from this regulation:
The 4473 should be amended to include the criteria from 478.11 in an instructions section for question 11e; and
If you have a misdemeanor conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year or multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year then you cannot purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.
A client recently asked this question. He specifically wanted to know if the rules differ when the customer is in a different state than the manufacturer or gunsmith.
Given the myriad laws and regulations which govern both the transfer and shipment of firearms, it is hardly surprising that this is an area of some confusion for both gun owners and licensees.
I should also note that I will answer the question based upon federal and Virginia law. Other states may have additional state-law requirements of which I am unaware.
Having said that, the ATF answers this exact question from a federal law perspective in their Top Ten Firearms Questions document (embedded below):
The relevant question is # 7 (emphasis added):
The code section referenced is 18 USC § 922(a)(2)(A) which reads in part:
“this paragraph … shall not be held to preclude a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector from returning a firearm or replacement firearm of the same kind and type to a person from whom it was received”
This exception is also mentioned in the Code of Federal Regulations § 478.124(a) which states in part:
“a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record the disposition made of a firearm delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received.”