DoJ Report on BATFE NFRTR Accuracy

Department of Justice ^ | June, 2007 | DoJ

[gieriscm]

RESULTS IN BRIEF

We found that since 2004, the NFA Branch has improved significantly the timeliness of both processing NFA weapons applications and responding to customer inquiries. However, continuing management and technical deficiencies contribute to inaccuracies in the NFRTR database. For example, NFA Branch staff do not process applications or enter data into the NFRTR in a consistent manner, which leads to errors in records and inconsistent decisions on NFA weapons applications. In addition, the NFA Branch has a backlog of record discrepancies between the NFRTR and inventories of federal firearms licensees that were identified during ATF compliance inspections. Further, the NFRTR’s software programming is flawed and causes technical problems for those working in the database. The lack of consistency in procedures and the backlog in reconciling discrepancies, combined with the technical issues, result in errors in the records, reports, and queries produced from the NFRTR. These errors affect the NFRTR’s reliability as a regulatory tool when it is used during compliance inspections of federal firearms licensees. However, we did not find evidence that individual weapons owners or federal firearms licensees had been sanctioned or criminally prosecuted because of errors in the database, as asserted in the citizens’ letters.

[gieriscm]

Thanks to NFAOA for getting this report and making it available. The full report is quite long - 58 pages - and very interesting reading.

[gieriscm]

ping

[Joe Brower]

More homework for y'all.

[coloradan]

I don’t see what the problem is. A typo in the database doesn’t bring any more harm than a mere federal felony weapons charge, after all.

[BorisTheBulletDodger]

Interesting.

Let me know when SCOTUS throws out the DC gun ban along with NFA and GCA so I can go buy me some $70 suppressors for less than $700.

[blackie]

Be Ever Vigilant!

[Atlas Sneezed]

Let me know when SCOTUS throws out the DC gun ban along with NFA and GCA so I can go buy me some $70 suppressors for less than $700.

---

Actually, the present market price on cans is not shortage-driven like it is for machine guns. New companies can start up now, and price them as they wish, and sell them to you. Of course, you need to add the $200 transfer tax, and you’d best plan on keeping it, because there is another $200 transfer tax if you want to sell to someone else.

But if the tax and hassles were repealed, then there would be much more competition and development, and a $75 suppressor would be very plausible, so I’m on your side.

[El Gato]

Eliminate the NFA. Problem solved. After all, what part of "shall not be infringed is so hard to understand?

[ExSoldier]

Is that possible if the SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd Amendment? I guess it will depend on the strictness of the holding. IF they rule broadly and incorporate, all bets and pretty much all gun laws are off. I'm guessing that they won't do this as a level of societal protection. But could it go that way, in your opinion?

[El Gato]

F they rule broadly and incorporate, all bets and pretty much all gun laws are off. I'm guessing that they won't do this as a level of societal protection. But could it go that way, in your opinion?

Not in the case before the court. The best those of us outside of DC can hope for is that the Supreme Court declares the right to be an individual one. They probably won't even rule exactly who may not infringe upon it, but by implication if DC, a creature of the federal government, can't then neither can the federal government. Then someone will have to get a case involving the NFA into the system, and up to the Supreme Court, before the nail can driven in it's coffin. Of course that effort can proceed in parallel with efforts to get the "shall not be infringed" to apply to the states through the 14th amendment, either it's due process or "privileges and immunities" clause. Although a fight in the state courts would seem more likely, with the argument being that the right protected by the state clause *must* be an individual one as well. (Of that is the case anyway, the states wouldn't be barred from disarming their own militias, as militias, that just doesn't make any sense, although I think state courts *have* ruled that way).