Final Response 2015-0677 For December 23 2015 Release

U.S.
Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
www.atf.gov
December 23, 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 3, 4, and 5 of your
request. This is the second 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)(3),
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), and/or 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C).
For this release, we have processed a total of 1,044 pages of potentially responsive material. We
are releasing 894 pages in full, and we are releasing 126 pages in part. We are withholding 24
pages in full, 2 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
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
ONE HISTORIC ARMS MODEL 54RCCS
"7.62X54R CALIBER CONVERSION
SYSTEM" MACHINEGUN, SERIAL NO. Vl,
Defendant .
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW the United States of America,
Plaintiff in the
above-styled civil action, pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and he reby moves the Court for summary
judgment, because the evidence shows that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment
in its favor as a matter of law .
As required by Local Rules 7 .1 (A) ( 1) and 56 .1, this Mo tion is
accompanied by a Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is
No Genuine Issue to be Tried and a Memo randum of Law, which c i tes
supporting authority.
In support of this Motion, Plaintiff re l ies upon any and all
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and
affidavits
on
file
with
the
court,
as
well
as
the
followi ng
Exhibits, which are attached to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law:
944
RIF
Exhibit 1
Exhibit lA
Exhibit 2
ATF letter to Claimant dated June 10, 2008

(From Deposition of Max K. Kingery, Exhibit 2)
Unsigned copy of Exhibit 1, provided for
legibility of text and photographs.
ATF letter to Claimant dated July 11, 2008
(From Exhibit 4, ~~ 8-9, supra.)
Exhibit 3
Declaration of Firearms Enforcement Officer

Max M. Kingery
Exhibit 3A
Curriculum vitae of Max M. Kingery
Exhibit 4
Declaration of Chief, Firearms Technology

Branch John R. Spencer
Exhibit SA
Video of
Defendant
Range.
April 15,
at DeKalb
2009, test firing of

County Police Firing
Exhibit SB
Video of
Defendant
Range.
April 15,
at DeKalb
2009, test firing of

County Police Firing
Exhibit 6
Undated videos (3) provided by Claimant during

discovery
Exhibit 7
Claimant's
Response
to
Plaintiff's First
Requests for Admission (Doc. 14).
Exhibit 8
Letter from Claimant's president dated June

16, 2008. (Doc. 5, ~ 6).
Exhibit 9
Claimant's ATF
Exhibit 8) .
Exhibit 10
ATF Rulings 82-2, 82-8 and 83-5
Form
(From Spencer Depo.,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that its Motion be inquired into

and granted.
945
RIF
This 28th day of October, 2009.

SALLY QUILLIAN YATES
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Isl G. Jeffrey Viscomi

G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Isl Harry R. Foster, III

HARRY R. FOSTER, III
SPECIAL ASSISTANT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Georgia Bar No. 289074

600 United States Courthouse
75 Spring Street, S . W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
( 404) 581-6036
jeffrey . viscomi@usdoj.gov

2600 Century Parkway, N. E.
Suite 335
(404) 417-2696
harry.foster@atf .gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
946
RIF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that , on October 28, 2009 , I electronically

filed PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT with the Clerk of
Court using the CMIECF system, which will automatically send email
notification of such filing to the following attorneys of record:
John R. Monroe
H. Monroe Whitesides, Jr.

G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
Georgia Bar Number 289074
600 UNITED STATES
75 SPRING STREET,
ATLANTA, GA 30303
Telephone:
( 404)
Facsimile :
( 404)
COURTHOUSE
S.W.
581-6000
581-6181
947
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-1 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1of10

FOR THE NORTHEJm DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO .
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
"7 . 62X54R CALIBER CONVERSION
Defendant.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE
IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE TRIED
1.
On
April
21,
2008,
Historic
Arms,
LLC,
(" Claimant")
Federally-licensed firearms manufacturer, filed a Notice of

Firearms
Manufactured o r
Impo rted,
Bureau
of
Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") Form 2 ("Form 2") .

(Exhibit 9).
2.
In
the
Form
2,
Claimant
provided
notice
that
it
had
manufactured one Histo ric Arms Model 54RRCCS 7.62x54R Caliber

Conversion System machinegun, serial number Vl, ("Defendant")
as a rifle having a barrel o r barrels of less than 16 inches
in length.
3.
On
that
(Exhibit 9) .
same
day,
Claimant's
President,
Lennis
Savage,
submitted the Defendant t o ATF's Firearms Technology Branch
948
RIF
("FTB") 1
in
evaluation.
4.
Martinsburg,
(Do c . 5 ,
<JI
West
Virginia
for
technical
3) .
Claimant's President also submitted a letter dated April 21,

2008, in which he asked that FTB verify that the Defendant:
1) Is "[d]esigned to be fired from the shoulder,"
2) "Has a barrel length of less than 16 inches," and
3) Is "[d]esigned for exclusive use in MAC type machineguns as
a caliber conversion system."
(Doc . 5,
5.
Upon
its
<JI
3) .
receipt
by ATF,
the
Defendant
was
assigned
to
Firearms Enforcement Officer Max M. Kingery ("FEO Kingery")

for classification. (Vasquez Depo., pp. 19-21).
6.
FEO Kingery conducted an examination of the Defendant and

determined that it was a modified PK2 type machinegun; however
FTB is the office within ATF responsible for providing

determinations, technical reports, correspondence, and training
material concerning the identification, origin, function, and
classification of firearms, ammunition, and implements of war
under the GCA, NFA, and the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U. S.C.
2778.
2
The PK, or Pulemet Kalashnikova, machinegun was o riginally

designed for the Soviet military in the 1960s and has
subsequently been manufactured in several variants, including the
PKM, by the Soviet Union, its subsequent incarnations, other
communist countries and satellite states.
2
949
RIF
it
was
submitted
without
trunnion/stock mounting block3
7.
FEO
Kingery's
examination
trigger
group
and
rear
(Exhibit 1, pp. 2 and 7).
specifically
found
that
the
Defendant was comprised of the following components:

1) a Modified PKM-type receiver, mated with a MAC-type upper;
2) an unmodified PKM-type top cover and feed-tray assembly;
3) a newly manufactured plastic forearm;
4) a shortened PKM-type gas system;
5) a barrel approximately 15-3/4 inches long;
6) a modified PKM-type machinegun bolt carrier assembly;
7) a PKM-type bolt assembly.
(Exhibit 1, p. 1).
8.
During deposition, Claimant's President stated the origin of

the receiver 4 used to construct the Defendant and verified
A trunnion, as commonly known in the firearms industry, is

the mounting block where a barrel is attached to the receiver,
when the receiver itself is not threaded to accept a barrel. The
PK type machinegun, being of Soviet design and origin, also
contains what the Soviets called a "rear trunnion." On the PK
type machinegun, the rear trunnion is designed to contain the
recoil mechanism, serve as an attachment point for the rear stock
assembly, and to house the feed tray locking latch.
4
Specifically, a "frame" or "receiver" is the "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." 27 C.F.R.
479.11.
It is also that portion of the weapon bearing the
firearm's serial number. See 26 U.S.C. 5842(a); 27 C.F.R.
479.102.
950
RIF
that the Defendant fired a 25-round test belt during test

firing at Claimant's range prior to its submission to ATF.
(Savage Depo., pp. 98-106 and Exhibit 6).
9.
Claimant ' s president stated that the Defendant's receiver was

a Wiselite semiautomatic PK receiver that he modified by
removing the lower shelf, which is where the machinegun bolt
blocking bar is located5
(Savage Depo., pp. 106-109; Kingery
Depa., p. 151, lines 13-16).
8.
FEO Kingery determined, and the Claimant confirmed that the

Defendant fires from an open bolt 6 and utilizes a fixed firing
5
A machinegun bolt blocking bar is a rectangular solid

metal bar (approximately ~ inch wide, by approximately l~ inches
long, by approximately 1/4 inch high) that is attached
permanently attached by fusion welding at approximately the
middle of the shelf on a semiautomatic PK receiver. ATF requires
all semiautomatic PK receivers to have a machinegun bolt blocking
bar to prevent the functioning of a PK machinegun bolt carrier
and bolt and to prevent automatic firing.
6
Firing from an open bolt refers to a method of operation

by which a machinegun's bolt is retracted to its rearmost
position and is held in such position until the trigger is
activated. Upon activation, normally the trigger acts on the
sear, releasing the bolt, which is propelled forward by the
action of a spring. The bolt strips a round of ammunition from
the clip or belt and forces the round of ammunition into the
chamber where a fixed firing pin, located on the bolt face,
ignites the primer firing the round. The reco il or gas generated
by the ignition of the gunpowder forces the bolt back to its
rearmost position and the cycle repeats automatically until the
trigger is released and the sear engages the bolt, the machinegun
malfunctions, or all ammunition is expended. Since 1982, ATF has
held that all firearms that fire from and open bolt are
4
951
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-1 Filed 10/28/09 Page 5 of 10
pin' .
10.
(Exhibit 3,
22 and Exhibit 7,
9).
After conducting his examination of the Defendant, FEO Kingery

concluded that, in addition to containing a frame or receiver
of a machinegun, the Defendant shot automatically more than
one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of
the trigger 8
11 .
(Exhibit 1, p. 8).
To verify that the Defendant shot automatically, FEO Kingery

first attached a 1 inch by 1 1/4 inch aluminum plate to the
rear of the Defendant utilizing duct tape and plastic zip
machineguns.
7
PK machineguns do not utilize a traditional fixed firing

pin, rather they utilize a rotating bolt that locks the firing
pin in the battery position when the bolt is moved forward, not
when the trigger is pulled. The design is the functional
equivalent to a traditional fixed firing pin and is clearly
distinguishable from "hammer or striker fired" firing pins common
on semiautomatic firearms which are held under spring tension and
released forward when the trigger is pulled. Since 1982, ATF has
held that all firearms that utilize a fixed firing pin are
machineguns.
8
Under the NFA, the term "trigger" is no t defined. ATF has

consistently held that the term "trigger" is not limited t o a
conventional trigger, but rather refers to any part of a firearm
that initiates the firing sequence. In the case at hand,
Claimant submitted the Defendant without a traditional trigger.
FTB was able to initiate the firing sequence by simply retracting
and releasing the bolt operating handle on the Defendant. Hence,
in the case of the Defendant, the bolt operating handle is the
trigger for purposes of the statutory definition.
5
952
RIF
t ies.
12 .
(Exhibit 1, pp. 6-7).
FEO Kingery attached an aluminum plate with duct tape and zip
ties to the Defendant utilizing no special tools, equipment or
skills.
13.
FEO Kingery then l o aded the Defendant with three rounds of

commercially available
7. 62x54R Wolf brand ammunition and
retracted and released the bolt operating handle to initiate

the firing sequence.
14 .
The Defendant fired a
(Exhibit 1, p. 6).
single round,
but the force of the
recoil generated by the firing of the round broke the plastic

zip ties and duct tape and the Defendant failed to chamber and
fire the second round.
15.
(Exhibit 1, p. 7).
FEO Kingery then reattache d the 1 inch by 1 1/4 inch aluminum

plate to the rear of the Defendant utilizing a short piece of
chain and a tensioning b o l t.
16.
(Exhibit 1, p. 7).
FEO Kingery's attachment o f the aluminum plate with a short

piece of chain and a tensioning bo lt to the Defendant took
approximately
two minutes
equipment or skills.
and
required
no
special
tools,
(Exhibit 3, 'ii 35).
953
RIF
17 .
FEO Kingery then l o ade d the

commercially available
Defendant with three rounds of
7. 62x54R Wolf
brand ammunition
and
retracted and released the bolt operating handle to initiate

the firing sequence.
1 8.
(Exhibit 1, p. 7).
The Defendant automatically fired all three rounds by a single

function of the trigger .
19 .
On April 15,
2009,
(Exhibit 1, p. 7)
FEO Kingery repeated and videotaped the
above-mentioned test at the Dekalb County Police Firing Range

in Lithonia, Georgia.
(Exhibit 3,
~~
17-19 and Exhibits SA
and SB)
20 .
The test was identical to the previo us test except that the
Defendant
was
loaded
with
seven
r o unds
available 7.62xS4R Wo lf brand ammunitio n.
of
commercially
(Exhibit 3,
~~
17-
19 and Exhibits SA and SB) .
2 1.
The Defendant auto matically fired all seven rounds by a single

function o f the trigger.
(E xhibit 3,
~~
17-19 and Exhibits SA
and SB) .
22.
After
FTB completed its
evaluation of
the
Defendant,
ATF
954
RIF
classified the Defendant as a "machinegun," as defined in 26

U.S.C. 5845(b).
23 .
(Exhibit 1, p. 8).
In reaching that conclusion, ATF found that the Defendant met

the definition of "machinegun" as set forth in 5845(b), as
it
was
the
frame
or
receiver
of
machinegun
and
shot
automatically more than one shot, by a single function of the

trigger.
24.
(Exhibit 1, p. 8).
ATF notified Claimant of its classification of the Defendant

as a machinegun by a letter dated June 10, 2008.
Cf[Cfl
25 .
(Exhibit 4,
6-7).
In reply, Claimant's president wrote ATF, in a letter dated

June
16,
2008,
and
stated his
belief
that
ATF' s
testing
procedures were "not valid," that the classification of the

Defendant
was
erroneous,
class if ica ti on.
26.
and
that
ATF
should
change
its
(Exhibit 8) .
ATF sent a letter, dated July 11, 2008, in which it advised

Claimant's president that he needed to amend his Form 2 to
reflect
the
(Exhibit 4,
Defendant's
Cf!Cfl
classification
as
machinegun.
6-7).
955
RIF
27.
Claimant's president rejected the recommendation, refusing to

sign an amended Form 2.
30.
(Exhibit 4,
10).
In August 2008, the Defendant was transferred to ATF's Atlanta

Field Division where it was seized for forfeiture.
4,
31.
(Exhibit
10).
On January 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed this action to forfeit

the Defendant pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
5872.
(Doc. 1).

Isl Harry R. Foster, III
G. JEFFREY VISCOMI

SPECIAL ASSISTANT

75 Spring Street, S.W.
(404) 581-6036
jeffrey.viscomi@usdoj.gov

2600 Century Parkway, N.E.
Suite 335
(404) 417-2696
956
RIF
I hereby certify that I have prepared the foregoing STATEMENT

OF MATERIAL FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE TO BE TRIED
in compliance with Local Rule 5.1, NDGa., using Courier New 12

point type and have this day electronically filed the document with
the
Clerk
of
Court
using
automatically send e-mail
the
CM/ECF
system,
which
notification of such filing
to
will
the
following attorneys of record:

John R. Monroe
H. Monroe Whitesides, Jr.
/s/ G. Jeffrey Viscomi
G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
957
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192GET Document 43-2 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 30

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Historic Arms, LLC (" Claimant" ) challenges the forfeiture of
one Historic Arms Model 54RRCCS 7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System
machinegun,
serial number Vl
("Defendant").
The Defendant is
subject to forfeiture as it is a machinegun that cannot be lawfully

possessed by Claimant because it has no t been properly registered
as required by the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 26 U.S.C . Chapter
53.
Because the Defendant is properly and reasonably classified as
a machinegun,
this Court should grant Summary Judgment to the
Government.
A.
Legal Background
The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"), as amended, generally

makes
it
"unlawful
machinegun."
18
for
u.s.c.
any
person
922 (o) (1).
958
to
transfer
or
possess
Certain exceptions t o this
RIF
prohibition exist, such as for law enforcement personnel and those

machineguns lawfully possessed on or before May 19,
U.S.C. 922(0) (2).
198 6.
18
The term "machinegun" used in section 922(0)
shares the definition of the term in the NFA.
The NFA defines a
machinegun as:
[A]ny 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, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts
designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon
into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from
which a machinegun can be assembled, if such parts are in
the possession or under the control of a person.
See 18 U. S . C. 921(a) (23); 26 U.S . C. 5845(b); see also 27 C.F.R.
478.11 and 479.11 .

Under
the
NFA,
machinegun
manufacturers
register in accordance with 26 U.S . C . 5822.
are
required
to
Generally, the GCA
requires that manufacturers may only manufacture machineguns for

the use of a Federal or State department or agency. See 18 U.S.C.
922(0).
("ATF")
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

is
the
agency
charged
with
the
administration
and
enforcement of the GCA and NFA.
See Akins v. United States, 312
Fed.
2009) (recognizi ng
Appx.
197,
198
(11th Cir.
Congressio nal
delegation of authority to ATF to interpret and enforce NFA); See

also
U.S .
v.
One Sentinel Arms
Striker-12
Shotgun Serial
No.
959
RIF
001725,
416
F.3d
977,
979-980
(9th
Cir.
2005) (recognizing
delegation of authority to ATF); 27 C.F.R. 479.
B.
Statement of Facts
Plaintiff inco rporates herein by refere nce its Statement of

Material Facts as to Which There is No Ge nuine Issue to Be Tried .
II . ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY

A.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, the discovery

and disclosure materials on file,
and any affidavits show that
there is no genuine issue as t o any material fact and that the

nonmoving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
R.
Civ.
P.
56(c).
Summary
j udgment
is
appropriate
forfeiture actions where th i s standard is met.

States v.
in
Fed.
civil
See, e . g . , United
$291,828.00 in United States Currency,
536 F . 3d 1234,
1236 (11th Cir. 2008).

When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and
supported, an opposing party may not rely merely o n
allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its
response must - by affidavits or as otherwise provided in
this rule - set out specific facts showing a genuine
issue for trial.
If the opposing party does not so
respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be
entered against that party .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (2).
The district court need not permit a
case to go to trial where the party opposing summary judgment

relies upon implausible inferences drawn from the evidence.
Mize
960
RIF
v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir . 1996).
"[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between
the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion
for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine
issue of material
fact."
Scott v.
Harris,
550
U.S.
372,
380
( 2007) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 4 77 U.S. 242, 24 748 (1986)) (emphasis in original).
A fact is "material" if proof of
its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the case

under the applicable law.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48.
A dispute
about a material fact is "genuine" (and, thus, sufficient to defeat

summary judgment) only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
there
is
genuine
issue
of material
fact
Id.
depends
Whether
upon
the
substantive law of the underlying case and the evidentiary burdens

that the law places on each party.
See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252-
57.
The summary judgment procedure "is particularly appropriate in
cases in which the court is asked to review . . . the decision of
a
federal
administrative
Growers Ass' n v.
Brock,
agency."
771
(internal citations omitted) .
Florida
F. 2d 1455,
1459
Fruit
&
Vegetable
(11th Cir.
1983)
In this case, "application of the
arbitrary and capricious standard to the [agency's] conclusions in

view of
the
facts
in
the
administrative
record raises
legal
961
RIF
questions,
no t
f a ctua l
o nes . "
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v.
United States , 420 F . Supp . 2d 1324, 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

B.
Forfeitures Under the National Firearms Act
Property involved in a violation of the NFA is subject to

seizure and forfeiture to the United States.
26 U.S.C.
The provisions of the Customs Laws (Title 19, U.S.C.

govern
the
seizure,
summary
and
judicial
5872(a).
1602-1618)
forfeiture,
condemnation of property by ATF for violations of the NFA. 1

U.S.C.
and
See 18
3051 (c) (1) . 2
With the passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act

of 2000 ("CAFRA"), Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000),
Congress mandated a fundamental change in the government's
initial burden of proof in most civil judicial forfeiture actions
that were commenced on or after the statute's effective date of
August 23, 2000. In many forfeiture actions under Federal law
the government now bears the burden of first establishing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that defendant property is subject
to forfeiture. See 18 U.S.C. 983(c) (1). However, the
provisions of CAFRA do not apply to any civil forfeiture action
commenced under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, such as the
present case. See 18 U.S.C. 983 (i) (2) (B); 26 U.S.C. 5872 (a).
2
Section 3051 (c) ( 1), enacted as part of the Homeland

Security Act of 2002, provides:
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), and
except to the extent that such provisions conflict with the
provisions of section 983 of title 18, United States Code,
insofar as section 983 applies, the provisions of the
Customs laws relating to(A)
(B)
(C)
the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture,

and condemnation of property;
the disposition of such property;
the remissions or mitigation of such
forfeiture; and
5
962
RIF
A person may file a claim of ownership of property seized by

the government for forfeiture.
of such claim,
f orfei tu re
19 U.S.C.
1608.
Upon the filing
the government must initiate a civil
action
and meet
its
initial burden
judicial
to demonstrate
probable cause to believe that the property was used in violation

of law.
19
1149, 1160
standard
u.s.c.
1615; United States v. $242,484.00, 389 F.3d
(11th Cir. 2004)
in
$183,791.00,
pre-CAFRA
2009
2009) (comparing
WL
(en bane)
forfeiture
2957276,
forfeiture
under
(applying probable cause

case) 3 ;
*5
United
Ga.
(N. D.
probable
cause
States
Sept.
v.
15,
standard
to
forfeiture under CAFRA).

The probable cause standard in non-CAFRA forfeitures is a
"reasonable ground for belief of guilt,
supported by less than
prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion-the same standard
(D)
the compromise o f claims,
shall apply t o seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged

to have been incurred, under any applicable provision of law
enforced or administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives.
Section 305l's predecessor statute, 31 U.S.C.
9703( 0 ) (repealed
by the Homeland Security Act Of 2002), similarly provided that
the Customs Laws governed all seizures and forfeitures by ATF.

3
Prior to the adoption of CAFRA (Seen. 1, supra), 21

U.S.C. 88l(d) made 19 U.S.C. 1615 applicable to sectio n 881
forfeiture actions, typically sought in narcotics cases. Thus,
pre-CAFRA narcotics f orfeiture cases provide thoughtful
discussions on forfeiture procedure under 1615.
6
963
RIF
used to determine the legality of arrests, searches, and seizures

in criminal law."
United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property
on Lake Forrest Circle, 870 F.2d 586, 590 n. 10 (11th Cir. 1989)
Once the government establishes probable cause, the claimant
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was
not related to a violation of federal law.
U.S. v.
$242,484 at 1160;
U.S.
19 U.S.C. 1615; See
v. Carrell,
252 F.3d 1193,
1201
(11th Cir. 2001) (discussing pre-CAFRA forfeiture in the context of

a
narcotics
case) .
If the claimant offers such evidence,
the
government may offer "probative admissible evidence to contest the

claimant's proof."
United States v. $129,727.00 U.S. Currency, 129
F.3d 486, 492 (9th Cir. 1997).

C.
The Government Has Established Probable Cause
It is clear from the facts of the present case that there is

probable cause to believe
that the Defendant was involved in a
violation of the NFA.

Under the NFA, a manufacturer is required to register every
firearm manufactured in the National Firearms Registration and
Transfer Record ("NFRTR").
must
include
an
26 U.S.C. 5841(b).
identification
of
the
The registration
firearm,
the
date
of
registration and the name and address of the person who may possess
the firearm.
Id.
The registration requirement is further spelled out in the

7
964
RIF
relevant regulations, which require a manufacturer to register all

firearms
manufactured
on
form
entitled
"Notice
of
Firearms
Manufactured or Imported," more commonly referred to as a "Form 2."

The
Form
must
set
forth
specific
information
about
the
manufacturer and the firearm, including the type, model and barrel
length of barrel.
27 C.F.R.
47~.103.
The Form 2 must be signed
under penalty of perjury and filed with ATF no later than the close
of
business
the
manufactured.
next
business
day
after
the
firearm
was
Id.
In the present case, Claimant submitted the Defendant with a

Form 2 dated April 21,
2008.
On the Form 2,
under the heading
"Type of Firearm," Claimant entered "SBR," an abbreviation for

short-barreled rifle. 4
Form 2,
(Savage Depo . , Exhibit 5).
Based on that
the Defendant was registered in the NFRTR as a short-
barreled rifle.
In a
(Spencer Depo., p. 14 lines 23-25).
letter to Claimant dated June 10,
2008,
ATF informed
Claimant's president, Lennis Savage, that ATF had classified the

Defendant as a machinegun.
The eight-page letter was prepared by
Firearms Enforcement Officer ("FEO") Kingery, reviewed by Firearms

4
Under the NFA all firearms, as defined by 26 U.S.C.

5845, including, but not limited to, machineguns and shortbarreled rifles, must be registered with ATF in the NFRTR.
965
RIF
Technology Branch
( "FTB")
Assistant
signed by FTB Chief John Spencer.
Chief Richard Vasquez
(Exhibit 1).
and
The text of the
letter explained the classification process and was accompanied by

photographs of the testing undertaken by FEO Kingery.
Id.
Page
eight of the letter states that the Defendant has been classified
as a machinegun and therefore the Defendant "must be properly
registered with the ATF National Firearms Act Branch by close of
business of the next business day following your receipt of this
letter."
(Spencer
Depo.,
p.
lines
10-15;
Exhibit
1,
p.
8) (emphasis added).
In response
to ATF' s
letter of June 10,
2008,
Claimant's
president sent a letter on behalf of Claimant, dated June 16, 2008,

expressing his opinion that ATF's classification was "not valid"
and erroneous.
(Doc. 5,
sent
two
at
least
6; letter attached as Exhibit 8).
subsequent
letters
to
Claimant,
ATF
advising
Claimant's president that the Defendant must be registered as a

machinegun via the submission of a corrected Form 2.
Claimant's
president refused, failing to submit a Form 2 consistent with ATF's

classification of the Defendant as a machinegun.
The NFA branch of ATF,
(Doc. 5,
7) .
which administers and maintains the
NFRTR, also advised Claimant of the need to submit a corrected Form
966
RIF
2.
(Doc. 5,
It
7) .
C][
is
of
Occupational
no
consequence
Taxpayer
("SOT"),
that
Claimant
is
licensed by ATF
to
firearms, including machineguns.

C.F.R.
479.31.
SOTs
are
manufacture
See 26 U.S.C. 5801, 5802; 27
required
to
register all
manufactured by the close of the following business day.
479.103.
Special
firearms
27 C.F.R.
Plaintiff is unaware of an exception that allows a SOT
to possess an unregistered or improperly registered firearm beyond

the
close
of
business
on
the
day
following
said
firearm's
the
transfer,
manufacture.
The
NFA bans
the
transfer
of
firearms
"if
receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in

violation of law." 26 U.S.C. 5812(a).
While there is no transfer
at issue in the present case, it follows from 5812(a) and common

sense that ATF could not return the Defendant to Claimant knowing
that doing so would have placed Claimant in violation of 18 U.S.C.
922(0) and 26 U.S.C. 586l(d) and (j).

Because Claimant failed to submit an accurate Form 2,
the
Defendant is not properly registered as a machinegun as required by

26 U. S.C .
5841 and 27 C.F.R .
479 . 101-105.
Therefore,
the
Defendant is an unregistered machinegun and cannot be possessed by

any person pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 586l(d); the government had no
10
967
RIF
option other than to condemn it and seek its forfeiture.

In addition to t he s h owing of probable cause in support of the
instant seizure , the materials upon which the United States relies
in support o f t h is Motion establish that the Defendant was properly
classified as a mach inegun within the meaning of the NFA.
0.
The Applicable Standard of Review
The Sup reme
Court has
recognized that agency
rulings
and
determinations that are the product of a Congressional mandate for

"administrative action with the
force
of law" are entitled to
deference and therefore should be sustained if reasonable (i.e.,

so-called "Chevron deference") .
United States v. Mead Corporation,
533 U. S. 218, 229 (2001); see also Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843
(1984).
Most
cases in which the Supreme Court applies Chevron deference involve

"the
fruits
adjudication."
of
notice-and-comment
rulemaking
or
formal
Mead, 533 U.S. at 230.
Where an agency determination does not qualify for Chevron

deference, the Supreme Court has measured the weight to be accorded
an
agency
determination
"Skidmore respect") .
on
sliding
scale
(i.e.,
so-called
"The fair measure of deference to an agency
administering its own statute has been understood to vary with

circumstances, and courts have looked to the degree of the agency's
11
968
RIF
care, its consistency, formality, and relative expertness, and to

the persuasiveness of the agency's position
"
Mead,
533
U.S. at 228 (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944),
footnotes omitted).
Skidmore respect therefore ranges from "great
respect" to "near indifference."
Id.
(citations omitted).
The precedent in the Eleventh Circuit is very clear: an ATF

firearms classification will be upheld provided that it is not
arbitrary and capricious.
197,
200
(11th Cir.
Akins v. United States, 312 Fed. Appx.
2009).
See also Gilbert Equipment Co. v.
Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071

(lith
Cir.
(S.D. Ala. 1989), aff'd, 894 F.2d 412
1990) (sustaining
ATF
classification
of
the
USAS-12
semiautomatic shotgun under the arbitrary and capricious standard) .

In
Akins,
Appellant
William
Akins
challenged
ATF's
classification of a device he manufactured to increase the firing

rate of semi-automatic rifles.
In March 2002, Akins submitted a
prototype of the device, named the "Akins Accelerator" to FTB.
FTB
tested Akins' device and determined that it was not a "machinegun"

under the NFA.
Akins, 312 Fed. Appx. at 198.
In November 2006,
several individuals contacted ATF with questions regarding Akins'

device.
In
classification.
addition,
Because
similar
of
devices
these
events,
were
ATF
submitted
for
re-opened
the
classification and, after further evaluation of a production model,
12
969
RIF
advised Akins that his device had been reclassified as a machinegun

and that any previous rulings were deemed "overruled." Id. at 199.
After his request for reconsideration was denied by ATF, Akins
filed a challenge in the district court, arguing in part that the
classification of the device as a machinegun was unreasonable and
that the summary classification of the device violated his right to
due process.
The district court granted summary judgment for the
United States and Akins appealed.
Id.
In affirming the district court's decision,
the Eleventh
Circuit first set forth the deferential standard by which it would

review ATF's classification of the Akins Accelerator:
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, we defer to the
decision of the Bureau unless it " ( 1) exceeds the
Bureau's
statutory
authority,
(2)
violates
a
constitutional right, or (3) constitutes an 'arbitrary'
or 'capricious action,' or 'an abuse of discretion' or an
action 'otherwise not in accordance with law. '" Based on
that deferential standard, we "cannot substitute our
judgment for the Bureau's judgment, but rather, we must
presume" that the actions of the government agency are
"valid [.] "
Akins, 312 Fed. Appx. at 200 (internal citations omitted) (quoting
Gun South, Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858, 861 (11th Cir. 1989)).
The
court held that ATF acted within its discretion when it classified
Akins' device.
312 Fed. Appx . at 200.
Further, the court found
that ATF's decision to reconsider its 2002 classification was not

Id.
13
970
RIF
The Akins court also ruled that ATF's denial of Akins' request
for reconsideration of the machinegun classification was not
violation of due process.
reclassification
and
Because Akins received notice of the
was
given
the
opportunity
reconsideration, due process was satisfied.

Finally,
outside
of
though Akins
its
did
not
statutory authority,
seek
to
Id.
claim that
the
court
ATF was
noted
acting
that
the
classification was made pursuant to the powers delegated to ATF by

Congress to interpret the NFA.
In
the
present
case,
Id. at 198.
ATF
Claimant submitted it to ATF.
classified
the
(Doc. 5, 'ii 3).
Defendant
after
Claimant was then
sent written notice of the classification along with an explanation

of how the classification was performed.
(Exhibit 1).
Claimant
disagreed with the classification and asked for reconsideration.

(Doc. 5
at~
6).
FTB denied Claimant's request.
(Exhibit 2).
In contesting this forfeiture action, Claimant argues that the

classification of the Defendant as a machinegun was incorrect.
(Doc. 5, Second Defense).
technical merits,
Akins.
as
Claimant's argument fails both on its
discussed in Section E,
supra,
and under
ATF acted within its authority when it classified the
Defendant
as
classification,
machinegun.
but
mere
Claimant may disagree

difference
of
with ATF' s
opinion,
however
vociferously advanced, does not render the classification arbitrary

and
capricious.
Accordingly,
ATF's
determination
that
the
14
971
RIF
Defendant is a machinegun within the meaning of the NFA must be

sustained
unless
it
was
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion , or otherwise contrary to law .
E.
The Defendant is a Machinegun
The crux o f this case centers o n ATF ' s classification of the

Defendant as
a machinegun under the NFA.
Congress originally
enacted the NFA in 1934 to regulate so-called "gangster weapons."

The NFA governs
the making,
machineguns
certain
and
impo rt,
o ther
transfer,
firearms.
The
and taxation of
NFA
defines
"machinegun" as:
Any weapon which shoots, is designe d 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, any part designed and intended solely and
exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended,
for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any
combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled
if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person .
26
u.s.c.
5845 (b).
The Defendant is a machinegun if it meets any one of the
Under the NFA, the term "trigger" is not defined. ATF has
consistently held that the term "trigger" is not limited to a
that initiates the firing sequence.
In the case at hand,
Claimant submitted the De'fendant without a traditional trigger.
FTB was able to initiate the firing sequence by simply retracting
and releasing the operating handle on the Defendant. Hence, in
the case of the Defendant, the operating handle is the trigger
for purposes of the statutory definition.
15
972
RIF
definitions
provided
by
statute.
United
States
v.
Espinosa, 57 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1362 (M.D. Fla. 1999).

Espinosa,
the court interpreted
5845(b)
Aguilar-
In Aguilar-
as providing multiple
independent definitions of machinegun:

In short, the statute provides several alternative
formulations.
If a weapon shoots automatically, is
designed to shoot automatically, or is readily restorable
to shoot automatically, the weapon is a machine gun.
These three al terna ti ves are expressed disjunctively.
Any weapon that qualifies under any one of the three
concepts (shoots, designed to shoot, restorable to shoot)
is a proscribed machine gun.
Aguilar-Espinosa at 1362 (emphasis added) .
In the present case, ATF initially found that the Defendant
contains the frame or receiver of a machinegun and is a weapon that
shoots automatically more than one shot without manual reloading,
by
single
function
of
the
trigger.
(Exhibit
1,
p.
8).
Subsequent evidence, including that obtained in discovery, led ATF

to conclude that the Defendant also meets two additional prongs of
section 5845(b), in that it is designed to shoot automatically more
than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the
trigger; and is a weapon that can be readily restored to shoot
automatically more than one shot without manual reloading,
single function of the trigger. 6
(Kingery Declaration,
by a
38).
In
While ATF concluded and maintains that the Defendant

shoots automatically, Plaintiff did not specifically allege this
in its complaint.
16
973
RIF
other word s ,
while the Defendant need satisfy only one of these
alternativ es to be considered a machinegun, ATF's classification

shows t h a t
the Defendant in fact meets two of the formulations
found in s e ction 5845(b ) and discovery in this case has allowed ATF
to determi ne that the Defendant meets,
in total ,
four different
formulation s of machinegun under section 5845(b) .

1.
Defendant Contains the Frame or Receiver of a

Machinequn
The a b ove-quoted definition includes an amendment enacted by

Congress in 1968 to include within the definition a machinegun
receiver
standing
alone . 7
receiver
is
the
main
structural
component of the weapon to which other working parts are attached

or in which all working parts are housed.
By making the receiver
equivalent to a machinegun, Congress clearly intended to control

and regulate this one component standing alone as a machinegun .
As
explained in the pertinent legislative history:

This is an important addition to the definition of a
machinegun and is intended to overcome problems encountered in
the administration and enforcement of existing law.
It is
intended that the [frame or receiver] be subject to all
provisions
of
the
chapter
applicable
to
serviceable
machineguns.
Of course, if the frame or receiver are
themselves unserviceable as a frame or receiver then they
would be treated as an unserviceable machinegun.
Any
machinegun frame or receiver which is readi l y restorable would
be treated as serviceable. (Removed extra line space below)
See NFA Amendments of 1968, adopted as Title II of the
Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213
(1968).
17
974
RIF
90~h
Sees. Rep. No. 1501,
Cong., 2d Sess. 45-46
(1968); see also
United States v. Whalen, 337 F. Supp. 1012, 1016-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

("Presumably the reason for this breadth of inclusion was the felt
necessity
for
keeping
record
not
only
of
all
operating
or
repairable machineguns, but also of all possible sources of parts

for
repairs
and
for
conversion
of
manual
weapons
into
machineguns.n) (citations omitted) . 8

It is not disputed that Claimant constructed the Defendant
utilizing
(Savage
modified
Depo.,
pp.
semiautomatic
106-109).
Wiseli te Arms
However,
PK
receiver.
Claimant's
president
testified that prior to assembling the Defendant, he removed the

lower shelf, including the machinegun bolt blocking
semiautomatic PK receiver.
Id .
bar ~ ,
from a
FEO Kingery testified that the
difference between a semiautomatic PK receiver and a machinegun PK
The Court in Whalen address e d "servic eablen firearms,

which are capable of discharging a sho t by means of an explo sive
or capable of being readily restored t o a firing condition, and
"unserviceablen firearms, whi ch are inc apable of discharging a
shot by means of an explosive and incapable of being readily
restored to a firing conditio n. Even an unserviceable firearm
can be a machinegun under the NFA. See 26 U.S.C. 5845(h) and
5852(e). See also United States v. Pena-Lora, 225 F.3d 17, 31-32
(1st Cir . 2000) (inoperable Uzi machinegun plainly meets the GCA
d ef i nition of machinegu n).
9
A machinegun bolt blocking bar

metal bar (approximately ~ inch wide,
long, by approximately 1/4 inch high)
a pproximately the middle o f the l o we r
receiver.
is a rectangular solid
by approximately l~ inches
that is attached at
shelf o n a semiautomatic PK
18
975
RIF
receiver is that the semiautomatic PK receiver has a machinegun

bolt blocking bar attached on its lower shelf and has a widened
left bolt guide rail.
(Kingery Depo., pp. 150-15 6) .
The purpose
of these two design features is to prevent the installation and

functioning
of
PK machinegun
facilitate automatic fire.
bolt
carrier
and
bolt,
Id. pp. 150-156 and 161-162.
type receiver without these features is a machinegun.

As
stated
above,
Claimant
constructed
the
which
Any PK
Id. p. 156.
Defendant
by
removing the lower shelf and machinegun bolt blocking bar on a

semiautomatic
Furthermore,
PK
receiver.
(Savage
Claimant modified a
Depo.,
pp.
112-113).
PK machinegun bolt carrier by
widening the left guide slot from 3/32 inch to 1/4 inch.
1, pp. 5-6).
defeated
the
As a result, the modified

purpose
of
the
(Exhibit
PK machinegun bolt carrier
widened
left
guide
rail
and
the
modified a PK machinegun bolt carrier and bolt could be installed

in
the
Defendant's
receiver,
thus
enabling
automatic
fire.
(Kingery Depo., p. 199, lines 20-22; Savage Depo., p. 134, lines 721) .
These mod if ica tions,
in and of themselves,
constitute the
manufacture of a machinegun as the Defendant's receiver no longer

contains the design features required to prevent the installation
of machinegun parts
contains
the
and automatic
frame or
modified by Claimant,
receiver
the
fire.
of a
Defendant's
Hence,
machinegun.
frame
or
the
Defendant
Further,
receiver
as
is
19
976
RIF
machinegun as defined by the statute regardless of whether it was

capable o f f i ring .
2.
A
Defendant is Designed to or Can be Readily Restored to

Shoot Automatically
firearm,
including
receiver,
is
machinegun
if
it
satisfies any of the statuto ry criteria set forth in 26 U.S.C.

5845(b), i.e., it shoots or is designed to shoot automatically, or
can be "readily restored" to shoot automatically.
The Defendant
satisfies this test because it is designed to shoot automatically

and, alternatively, because it can readily be restored to shoot
automatically.
neither
the
restorable."
The definition of machinegun in the NFA defines
term
"designed
to
shoot"
nor
the
term
"readily
Longstanding ATF rulings provide that "designed to
shoot" includes weapons that "possess specific machinegun design

features which facilitate automatic fire by simple modification or
elimination
of
existing
component
parts."
ATF
Ruling
82-2
reprinted in 1982-1 A.T.F. Q.B. at 18; 82-8 reprinted in 1982-2

A.T.F.
Q.B.
at 49;
83-5 reprinted in 1983-3 A.T.F.
(copies attached as Exhibit 10)

Treasury,
774
F.2d
417
1
J .
(10th
Q.B.
at 35
See York v. Secretary of the

Cir.
1985) (upholding
ATF' s
classification of a YAC Sten MKII as a machinegun pursuant to ATF
10
Effective January 24, 2003, all references to Title 27,

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 179, are now contained within
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 479.
20
977
RIF
Ruling 83-5) .
The Eleventh Circuit has held that a firearm with machinegun
design features is a machinegun even if it has not functioned as a
machinegun in the past .
See S.W. Daniel, Inc . , v. United States,
831 F.2d. 253, 254-55 (11th Cir. 1987) (upholding the use of a jury
instruction,
in a
tax liability case,
defini n g a machinegun as
"those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine guns

but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by
simple modification or elimination of existing component parts7").
In
addition,
the
above-mentioned
rulings
provide
that
"(t]he
'readily restorable' definition defines weapons which previously

could shoot automatically but will not in their present condition."
ATF
Ruling
82-2
reprinted
in
1982-1
reprinted in 1982-2 A . T . F. Q.B. at 49;
A.T.F.
Q.B.
at
18;
82-8
83-5 reprinted in 1983-3
A.T.F. Q.B. at 35 (copies attached as Exhibit 10).

Courts
have
held
that
the
"readily
restorable"
test
is
satisfied where a firearm can be made capable of renewed automatic

operation, even if the restoration required the application of some
degree of skill and the use of some tools and parts .
See United
States v. One Harrington and Richardson Rifle, Model M-14,

Caliber, Serial No.
85279,
278 F.Supp. 2d.
888,
891
7.62
(W.D. Mich.
2003) (firearm satisfies the "readily restorableu test if it can be

made
capable
of
automatic
operation
through
some
form
21
978
RIF
of
restoration, including restoration requiring a degree of skill and

the use of tools and parts) (citations omitted); United States v.
Aguilar-Espinosa, 5 7 F. Supp. 2d 1359, 1362 (M. D. Fla. 1999) (holding
that "readily restored" "means a less than arduous assembly of
manageable and available parts by a combination of (1) the ability
of a reasonably skilled and informed but not necessarily expert or
artistic worker and (2) tools commonly understood by and commonly
available to such workers, including, for example, Allen wrenches,
files,
jeweler's screw drivers, and the like but excluding, for
example,
the resources available to a master machinist with a
modern and well-equipped lathe."); United States v. Catanzaro, 368

F. Supp. 450, 453 n.3 (D. Conn. 1973) (firearm restored to automatic
fire capability by addition of $15.00 worth of parts and one hour
of assembly was readily restorable).
United States v. Smith, 477
F . 2d 399, 400 (8th Cir. 1973) (firearm was "readily restorable to

shoot automatically" notwithstanding that " [ t)o do so would take
about an 8-hour working day in a properly equipped machi ne shop").
On the other hand, the readily restored standard was held not
to be met
in a
case
in which
restoration
to
automatic
fire
capability would involve "impractical" drilling of barrel we l ds and

plugs that would damage or destroy the weapon barrel, require tools
costing approximately $65,000 (in 1980), and necessitate "expert
gunsmith services . "
United States v . Seven Misc . Firearms, 503 F.

22
979
RIF
Supp. 565,
573
(D.D.C. 1980).
Regardless of the amount or time
needed, level of skill required, or type of tools needed to restore

a
firearm,
the
restored firearm need not
original design specifications.
be
See United States v.
7.62x51mm Caliber,One Model 14 Serial 593006,

(9th Cir. 2006)
identical
to
the
TRW Rifle
447 F.3d 686,
691
(The rifle need not be a duplicate of the original
or even meet
the
original
specifications
to
qualify as
being
"restored.").
See also United States v. One TRW, Model M14, 7.62
Caliber Rifle, 441 F.3d 416, 424 (6th Cir. 2006) ("[T]he definition
of
'restore'
"restored"
does not preclude an object from being considered
without
returning
it
to
condition
in
which
it
previously existed.").
a.
The Defendant is Designed to Shoot Automatically
In examining
the
Defendant,
ATF
determined,
and
Claimant
readily concedes that the Defendant fires from and open bolt 11 and
11
Firing from an open bolt refers to a method of operation by

which a machinegun's bolt is retracted to its rearmost position
and is held in such position until the trigger is activated.
Upon activation, normally the trigger acts on the sear, releasing
the bolt, which is propelled forward by the action of a spring.
The bolt strips a round of ammunition from the clip or belt and
forces the round of ammunition into the chamber where a fixed
firing pin, located on the bolt face, ignites the primer firing
the round . The recoil or gas generated by the ignition of the
gunpowder forces the bolt back to its rearmost position and the
cycle repeats automatically until either the trigger is released
and the sear engages the bolt, the machinegun malfunctions, or
all ammunition is expended .
23
980
RIF
utilizes a fixed firing pin. 12
(Exhibit 1, p.2; Exhibit 7, 'H 9).
As discussed above, these features are unique to machineguns.

ATF Rulings
82-2,
82-8
and
83-5
(ATF classi f ica ti on
the
See
KG-9
pistol, the SM-10 and SM-llAl pistols and YAC STEN MK II carbine as
machineguns in part due to the fact that all were designed to fire
automatically as they all fired from an open bolt and utilized a
fixed
firing
pin) .
Since
issuing
those
rulings,
ATF
has
consistently held that open bolt operation and a fixed firing pin
were design characteristics of machineguns, and has classified all
firearms
which
contain
those
(Vasquez Depo., p. 61-62).
design
features
as
machineguns.
Now, some 25 years after ATF classified
the KG-9 pistol, the SM-10 and SM-llAl pistols and YAC STEN MK II
carbine as machineguns, Claimant argues that the Defendant is not
designed to fire automatically even though it admitted that the
Defendant incorporates
characteristics.
In
s.w.
the same operating principle and design
(Savage Depo., pp. 169-170; Exhibit 7,
Daniel,
the
Eleventh
Circuit
affirmed
9).
that
the
definition of machinegun includes "those weapons which have not
!PK machineguns do not utilize a traditional fixed firing

pin, rather they utilize a rotating bolt that locks the firing
pin in the battery position when the bolt is moved forward, no t
distinguishable from "hammer or striker fired" firing pins c ommo n
on semiautomatic firearms which are held under spring tension and
released forward when the trigger is pulled.
24
981
RIF
previously functioned as machine guns but possess design features

which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or
elimination of existing component parts."
Here, the "designed to
shoot" prong of the statutory definition is

because the Defendant,
clearly satisfied
as submitted by Claimant,
contained the
machinegun design features of open bolt operation and a fixed

firing pin, and was capable of shooting automatically wi th minor
modifications.
This classification is consistent with both ATF's
longstanding Rulings and this Circuit's precedent.

Defendant
is
machinegun,
since
it
was
As such, the
designed
to
shoot
automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a

single function of the trigger .
b.
The Defendant is Readily Re s t orabl e to Shoot

Automatical.ly
In addition to satis f ying the "designed to shoot" criterion of

Section 5845(b), the Defendant is also "readily restorable to shoot
automatically"
previously,
within
the
meaning
of
the
NFA.
As
stated
Claimant admitted that the Defendant's receiver is
constructed from a semiautomatic PK receiver which was modified by

removing the lower shelf and machinegun bolt blocking bar.
Depa., pp. 106-107).
the
machinegun
bolt
(Savage
FEO Kingery testified that Claimant removed

blocking
bar
from
receiver, thus manufacturing a machinegun.
the
semiautomatic
PK
(Kingery Depo., p. 199,
25
982
RIF
lines 18-22).
During deposition, Claimant's president identified
three
clips
video
which
depicted
the
Defendant
automatically prior to its submission to ATF.

98-103 and Exhibit 6).
shooting
(Savage Depo., pp.
It is not disputed that when Claimant
provided the Defendant to ATF, it was incomplete and not in firing

condition as it lacked a mechanism to capture the recoil spring,
operating
rod
and
buffer
assembly
and
traditional
trigger.

FEO
Kingery
demonstrated
that
the
Defendant
was
readily
restorable to function as a machinegun in a matter of a few minutes

with the addition of a few common parts which are available at any
hardware store. 1 3 (Kingery Depo., pp. 112-122).
The Defendant was
restored to firing condition by simply securi ng a 1 inch by 1 1 /4

inch aluminum plate to the rear of the Defendant's receiver with a
short length of chain and tensioning bolt. Id.;
The
restoration
required
no
permanent
(Exhibit 3,
modifications
34).
to
the
Defendant and took less than two minutes to accomplish using no

tools.
(Exhibit 3,
35) .
To verify that the restored Defendant
would function as a machinegun,
FEO Kingery loaded the Defendant
with a belt of three rounds of commercially available Wolf brand

7.62 x 54R ammunition and retracted and released the bolt operating
13
The FTB Report contains a complete description and

photographs how FTB restored the Defendant's capacity for fully
automatic fire. (Exhibit 1, pp. 6-7).
26
983
RIF
handle.
(Exhibit 1. pp. 6-7).
The release of the bolt operating
handle initiated an automatic firing sequence whereby the Defendant

fired all three rounds automatically, without manual reloading, by
a single function of the trigger.
April
15,
2009
at
Lithonia, Georgia.
the
DeKalb
(Exhibit 3,
Id.
County
'.11'.ll
This test was repeated on

Police
Firing
Range
17-19; Exhibits SA and B).
in
The
test was identical to the previous test except that the Defendant
was loaded with seven rounds of commercially available Wolf brand
(Exhibit 3, '.II 18).
7.62 x 54R ammunition.
Again, the Defendant
fired all seven rounds automatically, without manual reloading, by

single function of the
trigger.
Id.
'.II
19.
Furthermore,
the
Claimant conceded that the Defendant would shoot automatically

regardless of what items were secured to the rear of the Defendant
if the such items could capture the recoil spring, operating rod
and buffer assembly.
(Exhibit 7, '.11'.ll 17-18).
In previous cases,
courts have found that machineguns were
readily restorable when the act of restoring the machinegun to

shoot automatically took up to several hours,
skills,
tools,
and machinery.
Here,
utilizing special
the undisputed facts show
that the Defendant was readily restored to shoot automatically by

the
simple
addition
of
approximately two minutes.

parts or skills.
three
common
pieces
of
hardware
in
The restoration took no special tools,
(Exhibit 3, '.II 35).
As such, the
Defendant is a
27
984
RIF
machinegun,
since it 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.
Based on
the
foregoing,
the
Court
should
hold
that
the
Defendant contains the frame or receiver of a machinegun and is

designed to, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically
more than one shot, without manual reloading, by single function of
the trigger.
III . CONCLUSION
ATF acted reasonably in protecting the public by classifying
the
Defendant
as
machinegun.
Claimant
failed
to properly
register the Defendant and further refused to avail himself of the

opportunities given to him to do so.
Therefore, the Defendant is
an improperly registered machinegun which cannot be returned to

Claimant and the Defendant must be forfeited to the United States.
Accordingly, the Court should grant judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
Dated: October 28, 2009
28
985
RIF

/s/ G. Jeffrey Viscomi
G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
(404) 581-6036
/s/ Harry R. Foster, III

SPECIAL ASSISTANT
Suite 335
(404) 417-2696
29
986
RIF
I hereby cert ify t hat I have prepared the foregoing MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT in
compliance with Local Rule 5 . 1 , NDGa., using Courier New 12 point
type and have thi s day electronically filed the document with the
Clerk of Court us ing t he CM/ECF system, which will automatically
send e-mail notifi cation of such filing to the following attorneys
of record:
John R. Monroe
H. Monroe Whitesides, Jr .

G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
987
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document A3 -3 File d 10/28/09 t.Page 1 of 8

U.S. Department oT Jus ice

Maninsburg, WV
2540 I
www.atf.gov
903050:MMK
3311/2008-472
JUN 10 2008
Mr. Len Savage
Historic Arms, LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Franklin, Georgia 30217
Dear Mr. Savage:
This refers to your letter of April 21, 2008, to the Fireanns Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns and Explosives (ATF), regarding a submitted prototype. Your
submission is a modified PKM-type, 7.62x54R caliber machinegun receiver assembly, which
you have designated the Model 54RCCS. serial number VJ. You request verification that the
sample is designed to be fired from the shoulder, has a barrel length of less than 16 inches, and is
designed for "exclusive use in a MAC-type machinegun as a caliber conversion device.
The submitted sample (photo immediately below) is comprised of the following components:
Modified PKM-type receiver, mated with a MAC-type upper.

Unmodified PKM-type top cover and feed-tray assembly.
Newly manufactured plastic foreann.
Shortened PKM-type gas system.
Barrel approximately 15-3/4 inches long.
Modi fled PKM-type machinegun bolt carrier assembly.
PKM-type bolt assembly.
~--~ Alw LL.A;,

Modet ~ Seftil No.: V1
988
. .........
'
'
RIF

-2Mr. Len Savage
The FTB examination noted the following external markings:
On the right side of the receiver
HISTORIC ARMS LLC

FRANKLIN GA
54RCCS 7.62x54R
SERIAL No - VJ
JI
On the top of the feed-tray assembly
EA-141
1976
FTB examination noted the PKM-type receiver was modified in the following manner (see
photos, below):
The lower rear portion of the machinegun receiver where the trigger guard is mounted
and a short section of the rear, was removed.
The rear trunion/stock-mounting-block was removed.
989
RIF
3Mr. Len Savage
A modified MAC-type upper assembly was inserted into the rear of the PKM-type
machinegun receiver and welded in place (see photos below and next page).
1
.. . -, .
'r
... _. -.
,-;....
...
.-:
-.
J ,.
990
.:
:. ~ ~
RIF

-4-
Mr. Len Savage
The left-side bolt guide rai I was widened in a manner preventing installation of an
unmodified machinegun bolt.
A new manufactured plate was welded in place to act as a catch for the top cover lock.
A new manufactured ejection port cover was added to the left side.
991
RIF

-5Mr. Len Savage
In addition, a modified PKM-type machinegun bolt-carrier-group was found installed. The

following characteristics/features of this bolt carrier were noted:
Gas piston was shortened.
Original sear notch removed and a plate welded on to act as a sear notch for a MAC-type
machinegun sear.
Un-Modified Bolt-Carrier Assembly
992
RIF

-6Mr. Len Savage
Left-side guide-rail notch in the bolt widened from 3/32 inch to 1/4 inch.
Gulde-rail slot
The submitted sample was test fired on May 8, 2008, at the ATF test range, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, utilizing commercially available Wolf brand, 7.62x54R caliber ammunition. Due to the
absence of a rear trunnion block to hold the recoil spring and guide rod in place, an aluminum
plate (from stock), approximately 1-1 /4 inch x 1 inch and approximately 3/16 inch thick, was
tied to the rear of the receiver using duct tape and two plastic ties (see photo below).
993
RIF
case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-3 Filed 10/28/09 Page 7 of 8

-7-
Mr. Len Savage
With the normal factory trigger removed, the operating handle becomes the trigger which
initiates the automatic, open-bolt firing sequence. A belt of three rounds was loaded into the
sample; the operating handle was pulled back and released. The sample fired one round, and the
plastic ties separated under the recoil forces.
Next, to more securely hold the aluminum plate in place, a small section of metal chain was used
(see photo, next page). The chain was selected since it incorporated a tensioning bolt that could
securely hold the aluminum plate in place and would not be cut by the sharp edges of the
aluminum plate.
Again, a belt of three rounds of ammunition was loaded into the sample; the operating handle
was pulled back and released. The sample fired all three rounds automatically, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This test was repeated with an additional three
rounds of ammunition, with the same result.
The use of a modified bolt did not remove the machinegun features of this bolt. It is still an
open-bolt operated device.
In review of your modifications of the PKM-type machinegun receiver, it was determined that
the original machinegun design features/characteristics were retained. Specifically, a PKM-type
machinegun receiver; an open-bolt firing mechanism; an original PKM-type machinegun belt
feed ammunition mechanism; and a shortened PKM-type machinegun barrel. It was determined
that a MAC-type upper assembly was welded to the PKM-type machinegun receiver, which
allows the PKM-type machinegun receiver to be attached to a MAC-type machinegun receiver.
These modifications do not allow for a shoulder stock. Instead, the intent is to use the shoulder
stock and/or pistol grip on the MAC-type machinegun receiver to which it is mounted. Further,
the mating of the cwo machinegun receivers, simply allows the MAC-type machinegun receiver
to be utilized in initiating the automatic firing sequence of the PKM-type mac~inegun receiver.
994
RIF
-8Mr. Len Savage
In conclusion, FTB found that the "Model 54RCCS, serial number Vt'' submitted with your
correspondence is a weapon that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger; it also incorporates the frame or receiver of a
rnachinegun. Therefore, the submitted sample constitutes a "machinegun" as defined in 26
5845{b).
u.s.c.
With regard to your request we determine if the submitted sample is a caliber conversion device
or not. The welding of MAC-type upper section to the internal portion of your PKM-type
receiver does not create a caliber conversion. Further, the combination of the MAC-type
rnachinegun and your PKM-type machinegun would result in the creation of a new machinegun.
We regret that our response in this matter has not been more favorable. Because your sample
constitutes a "machinegun," in and of itself and you are a registered SOT, the machinegun must
be properly registered with the ATF National Firearms Act Branch by close of business of the
next business day following your receipt of this letter. Please notify FTB when the registration
process is complete.
The sample will be returned to you under separate cover upon receipt of a notice of proper
registration. To expedite the return of your prototype, please provide FTB with your FedEx
account number or other appropriate carrier information within 30 days after receiving this letter.
We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your request for an evaluation and classification.
Ifwe can be of any further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
ohn R. Spencer
Chief, irearms Technology Branch
995
RIF
903050:MMK
3311/2008-472
Mr. Len Savage

Historic Anns, LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Dear Mr. Savage:
This refers to your letter of April 21, 2008, to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding a submitted prototype. Your
submission is a modified PKM-type, 7.62x54R caliber machinegun receiver assembly, which
you have designated the Model 5./RCCS, serial number VJ. You request verification that the

Newly manufactured plastic forearm.
Modified PKM-type machinegun bolt carrier assembly.
ld>cnla.d a.q,le
tlsCorlc Arms U.C. Modet 54ACC8. 8erial No.: V1
996
RIF

-2-
Mr. Len Savage

HISTORIC ARMS LLC
FRANKLIN GA ~@
54RCCS 7.62x54R
SERIAL
No - Vl
EA-141
1976
photos, below):
997
RIF

-3Mr. Len Savage
Serial No.: V1
998
RIF

-4-
Mr. Len Savage
The left-side bolt guide rail was widened in a manner preventing installation of an
//
h'/
.'f
'/""
999
RIF
-5Mr. Len Savage

SCRCC8, modJfted plltonlbolt es eemb~
machinegun sear.
Gulde Rall
1000
RIF

-6Mr. Len Savage
Gulde-rall slot
plate (from stock), approximately 1-114 inch x I inch and approximately 3/16 inch thick, was
1001
RIF

-7-
Mr. Len Savage
aluminum plate.
the mating of the two machinegun receivers, simply allows the MAC-type machinegun receiver
to be utilized in initiating the automatic firing sequence of the PKM-type machinegun receiver.
1002
RIF

-8Mr. Len Savage
In conclusion, FTB found that the "Model 54RCCS, serial number VI" submitted with your
machinegun. Therefore, the submitted sample constitutes a "machinegun" as defined in 26
u.s.c. 5845(b).
machinegun and your PKM-type machinegun would result in the creation of a new machinegun.
be properly registered with the A TF National Firearms Act Branch by close of business of the
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
John R. Spencer
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
1003
RIF
Q\ Case 1:09:.cv-00192-GET

Maninsburg, WV 25401
www.1tf.gov
JUL 11 2008
903050:JRS
3311/2008-642
Mr. Len Savage

Historic Arms, LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Dear Mr. Savage:
This is in response to your facsimile to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns and Explosives (ATF), which was received on
June 16, 2008. Your correspondence set forth your concerns with regard to FTB's
classification of your modified PKM-type 7.62x54R caliber machinegun. You submitted
the machinegun under your designation of Model 54RCCS, serial number VJ .
Specifically, you requested a reconsideration of the classification and request return of
your firearm.
The steps ATF has taken to evaluate your fireann and determine the proper classification
are outlined in our June 10, 2008, letter to you (#3311/2008-471). ATF stands by the
criteria and methods used to classify your firearm as a machinegun because it is designed
to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function
of the trigger. Additionally, it has the design features of a machinegun and, even if the
qualifying features were removed, it would be readily restorable to shoot automatically as
a machinegun. For these reasons, ATF will not grant your request for an aJtemate
classification. No further evaluation is necessary, and none will be conducted for
classification purposes.
As you may know, Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 479.103 mandates
timely notice to ATF of all firearms manufactured by special (occupational) tax (SOT)
holders, with notice of all firearms manufactured by an SOT during a single business day
to be submitted before close of the next business day. Further, Title 18, United States
Code, Section 922(o), as codified in 27 CFR 479. I 05(a), prohibits the possession of a
machinegun manufactured after May 19, 1986. The only machineguns allowed are.those
manufactured by a licensed SOT, which are made: I) for sale or distribution to U.S.,
State, or Jocal government use or export; 2) as sales samples; or 3) at the request of and
on behalf of governmental entities. Machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986, that
are for sale or distribution to the government are registered and transferred conditioned
on the sale or distribution for official government use or export. Dealer sales samples
require, among other things, specific information that governmental customers need a
1004
RIF
Case 1:09:.cv-00192-GET Document 43-5 Filed 10/28/09 Page ? of 2

-2-
Mr. Len Savage
demonstration of the weapon, as well as letters from the governmental entity expressing a
need for a particular model.
You registered the firearm as a short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act
(NFA); however, ATF has classified it as a machinegun. Therefore, the firearm is
improperly registered. On June 23, 2008, Acting Branch Chief of the NFA Branch,
Dawn Smith, informed you by telephone of your requirements to register this firearm.
By letter dated June' 18, 2008, you were also informed by ATF of the requirements to
register this firearm. To date, you have failed to comply with the requirements. Instead,
in a letter dated June 16, 2008, you sent a notice to ATF that you are awaiting ATF's
reconsideration of the classification. ATF has now responded to your request for
reconsideration.
Although the time to register this firearm has passed, in light of your request for a
reconsideration and initial attempts to register the firearm prior to classification, ATF is
allowing you to register the firearm in compliance with 27 CFR 479.103 and 479.105
(a)(c)(d) and/or ( e). You must submit proper registration and documents for this firearm
before close of business of the next business day from your receipt of this letter.. The
firearm will not be eligible for registration after this date. If you allege an exemption
under 27 CFR 479.105, please submit substantiating documents. Failure to provide
ATF with proper registration documents will result in ATF seizing and instituting
forfeiture proceedings against the machinegun.
We trust that the foregoing is responsive to your inquiry, and appreciate your
understanding of this issue.
Sincerely yours,
fl----.-......
John R. Spencer
Chi , treanns Technology Branch
1005
RIF

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO .
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF MAX M. KINGERY
COMES NOW Max M. Kingery and states the following:
1.
am a
Firearms
Enforcement
Officer
with
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'

Technology Branch ( "FTB") 7
the
Bureau of
("ATF") 1 Firearms
have been so employed since
July 2005.
2.
My
Curriculum
Vitae
is
attached
as
Exhibit
3A
and
is
incorporated by reference.
1
ATF is the agency charged with the administration and

enforcement of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, and
National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
2
FTB is the off ice within ATF responsible for providing

determinations, technical reports, correspondence, and training
classification of firearms, ammunition, and implements of war
under the GCA, NFA, and the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C.
2778.
1006
RIF
3.
Beginning sometime in late April through early May 2008,
examined the Historic Arms Model 54RCCS Caliber Conversion

System, Serial No. Vl ("Defendant") that had been submitted to
FTB by Histo ric Arms, LLC,
4.
("Claimant") for classificatio n.
During my examination of the Defendant, I determined that the

Defendant, as submitted, was missing a trigger group and rear
trunnion/stock mounting block, 3 but
classified it as a
machinegun because it still met the definition of a machinegun

found at 26 U.S.C.
5.
Title 26 U.S.C.
5845(b).
5845(b) defines a machinegun as:
"any weapon which shoo~s, 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, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively,
or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of
parts from which a machinegun can be assembled, if such parts
are in the possession or under the control of a person."
A trunnion, as commonly known in the firearms industry, is

the mounting block where a barrel is attached to the receiver,
when the receiver itself is not threaded to accept a barrel. The
PK type machinegun, being of Soviet design and origin, also
contains what the Soviets called a "rear trunnion." On the PK
type machinegun, the rear trunnion is designed to contain the
recoil mechanism, serve as an attachment point for the rear stock
assembly, and to house the feed tray locking latch.
2
1007
RIF
6.
My examination of the Defendant led me to classify it as a

machinegun because at the time of my examination, I determined
the
Defendant
met
two
separate
prongs
of
the
statutory
that
the
Defendant
definition.
7.
Specifically,
my
examination
contained the
frame or
revealed
receiver 4 of a
PK type machinegun
because the manufacturer had removed or defeated the design

characteristics
on
semiautomatic
PK
receiver
that
ATF
requires to prevent automatic fire.
8.
Any PK type receiver which has had these features defeated or

removed is a machinegun.
9.
Under 26 U.S.C .
5845(b),
the
"frame or
rece i ver"
of
machinegun is a machinegun in and of itse l f.
" Specifically, a "frame" or "receiver" i s the "part of a

firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or
breechblock and firing mechanism, and which is usua l ly threaded
at its forward portion to receive the barrel . " 27 C.F . R .
479.11. It is also that portion of the weapon bearing the
firearm's serial number. See 26 U.S.C. 5842(a); 27 C.F.R.
479.102 .
3
1008
RIF
10.
Additionally,
shoots
my
examination
automatically
more
revealed
than
one
that
shot,
the
Defendant
without
manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger 5
1 1.
To verify that the Defendant shoots auto matically, I attached

a
1 inch by 1 1I4 inch aluminum plate to the rear of the
Defendant utilizing a short piece of chain and a tensioning

bolt.
12 .
After attaching these parts, I loaded the Defendant with three

rounds of 7.62x54R ammunition and retracted and released the
operating handle which initiated and automatic firing sequence
that resulted in the firing of all three rounds.
13 .
Under
26
U.S . C .
5845(b),
any
firearm
that
shoots
automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading is

a machinegun.
Under the NFA, the term "trigger" is not defined. ATF has
consistently held that the term "trigger" is not limited to a
that initiates the firing sequence.
In the case at hand, the
Defendant was submitted without a traditional trigger.
I was
able to initiate the firing sequence by simply retracting and
releasing the operating handle on the Defendant. Hence, in the
case of the Defendant, the operating handle is the trigger for
purposes of the statutory definition.
4
1009
RIF
14.
Based on the above-mentioned facts, I classified the Defendant

as a machinegun as it contains the frame or receiver of a
machinegun
and
shoots
automatically more
than
one
shot,
witho ut manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
lS.
My findings and conclusions were documented in a letter dated

June 10, 2008, to Claimant, the manufacturer of the Defendant.
16 .
The June 10, 2008, letter to Claimant has been submitted to

this Court as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference.
17.
On April lS, 2009, I repeated the above-mentioned test at the

DeKalb County Police Firing Range in Lithonia, Georgia.
This
event was videotaped and is incorporated as Exhibits SA and

SB.
18 .
The test was identical to the previous test except that the
Defendant
was
loaded
with
seven
rounds
of
commercially
available 7.62xS4R Wolf brand ammunition.
19 .
The Defendant automatically fired all seven rounds by a single

function of the trigger.
5
1010
RIF
2 0.
During the discovery process in this forfeiture action,
learned additional information regarding the origin of the

parts
used
to
construct
the
Defendant,
the
design
and
manufacturing pro cess utilized t o c o nstruct the Defendant, and

the
Claimant's
testing
of
the
Defendant
prior
to
its
submissio n to ATF.
21 .
In
light
learned,
of
the
aforesaid
additional
information
that
I have now determined that the Defendant meets two
additional prongs of the statutory definition of machinegun,

along with the other two prongs of the statutory definition
cited in the June 10, 2008, Letter to Claimant.
22.
As I noted in my original examination,
the Defendant fires
from an open bolt 0 and utilizes a fixed firing pin 1
Firing from an open bolt refers to a method of operation by

which a machinegun's bolt is retracted to its rearmost position
and is held in such position until the trigger is activated .
Upon activation, normally the trigger acts on the sear, releasing
the bolt, which is propelled forward by the action of a spring.
The bolt strips a round of ammunition from the clip or belt and
forces the round of ammunition into the chamber where a fixed
firing pin, located on the bolt face, ignites the primer firing
the round. The recoil or gas generated by the ignition of the
gunpowder forces the bolt back to its rearmost position and the
cycle repeats automatically until either the trigger is released
and the sear engages the bolt, the machinegun malfunctions, or
6
1011
RIF
23.
Open bolt firing and utilization of a fixed firing pin are

characteristics
of
machineguns
and
since
1982,
ATF
has
classified all firearms that have these two design features as

machineguns.
24.
Based on statements made by Claimant's president regarding the

Defendant's design,
I have subsequently determined that the
Defendant is a firearm that is designed to shoot automatically

more than one shot, without manual reloading.
25.
Under 26 U.S.C.
shoot
5845(b), any firearm that is designed to
automatically
more
than
one
shot,
without
manual
reloading is a machinegun.
26 .
Furthermore, based on Claimant's president's statements during

Deposition
and
automatically
on
video
prior
to
clips
its
of
the
Defendant
submission,
shooting
subsequently
all ammunition is expended.

7
PK machineguns do not utilize a traditional fixed firing

pin, rather they utilize a rotating b o lt that locks the firing
pin in the battery p o sition when the b o lt is moved forward, not
distinguishable fr om "hammer fired" firing pins common on
semiautomatics which are held under spring t e nsion and released
to forward when the trigger is pulled.
7
1012
RIF
determined that the Defendant can be readily restored to shoot

automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by
a single function of the trigger.
27.
As stated in ATF's June 10, 2008,
letter,
I determined that
the Defendant contained the frame or receiver of a machinegun,

but as submitted, the Defendant was not capable of firing due
to the manufacturer's failure to submit it with a
trigger
group and rear trunni o n/sto ck assembly.
28.
During my original examination of the Defendant, I was unable

to determine
the
origin of the
PK type
receiver
used
to
construct the Defendant.
29 .
The above-stated failure was due in part to the fact that the
PK type receiver's original manufacturer's required markings,
including manufacturer, model, and serial number, were either
removed or obscured.
30 .
Since I did not know the origin of the PK type receiver used
to
construct
the
Defendant,
had
no
evidence
Defendant had previously shot automatically more
that
the
than one
1013
RIF
shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the

trigger.
31 .
Absent such evidence, I c o uld not equivocally conclude that

the Defendant could be readily restored to shoot automatically
more than one sho t,
without manual reloading,
by a
single
function of the trigger because I could not restore a firearm

to shoot automatically more than one shot,
without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger if that firearm

had not previo usly sho t
automatically more than one shot,
32.
Based on the information learned during discovery, I now know

that the Defendant shot automatically more
than one shot,
wi thout manual reloading, b y a single function of the trigger

at some date prior to its submission to ATF.
33 .
In light of this fact,
have subsequently determined the
Defendant can be readily restored to shoot automatically more

than one shot, wi thout manual reloading, by a single function
of the trigger .
1014
RIF
34 .
In
light
of
the
automatically,
fact
that
the
Defendant previously
shot
the act of attaching a 1 inch by 1 1/4 inch
aluminum plate to the rear o f the Defendant utilizing apiece

of chain and a
tensioning b o lt restored the
Defendant to
firing c o nditi o n.
35 .
The act of restoring the Defendant to firing condition took

approximately two minutes and required no tools.
36.
After attaching these parts, I l o aded the Defendant with three

rounds of 7.62x54R ammunitio n and retracted and released the
operating handle which initiated and automatic firing sequence
that resulted in the firing o f all three rounds.
37 .
Under
26
U.S.C.
5 845(b),
any
firearm
that
shoots
automatically mo re than o ne sho t, without manual reloading is

a machinegun.
38.
Based on the above-mentioned facts, I have determined that the

Defendant is a machinegun as it c o ntains the frame or receiver
of a machinegun and it shoots, is designed to shoot, and can
be readily resto red to shoot more
than one shot,
without
manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
10
1015
RIF
39.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1746, I declare, under penalty of
perjury, that the facts stated above are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
This 28th day of October, 2009 .
.. r- > ...,....,..,...._,._\. i...,

o==::.....;:~
NOTARY PUBLIC
STA-E OF WEST Vl'IG1N1A
ALLISON L. ZACHERL
19 :SCAl..AOE LANE
t.Wr!NSBUAG WV 25403
My co'""'HiO" 1x::1es cc::ioe 11. :acne
11
1016
RIF
QUALIFICATIONS
FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (FEO)
MAX M. KINGERY
Current - Presently employed by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
firearms and Explosives, Martinsburg, West Virginia, as a Firearms Enforcement Officer. My
duties include the following: ( 1) Provide technical information regarding ammunition and
fireann identification, operation, and design for the purpose of assisting the Bureau, as well as
the law enforcement community in general, in the implementation of the Gun Control Act of
1968 and the National Firearms Act. (2) Conduct examinations and testing of ammunition and
firearms and related devices submitted as evidence. (3) Prepare official responses to written
inquiries from the firearms industry and the general public. (4) Utilize and assist in maintaining
ATF fireanns reference collection of approximately 9,000 firearms and extensive reference
library of books, catalogs, and official documents relating to the firearms field . (5) Provide
interagency, as well as law enforcement wide, training regarding ammunition and fireann
identification, operation, design, and nexus. (6) Conduct evaluations of industry imported
firearms intended for retail.
Responsible for development and implementation of a new silencer testing instrumentation
system known as the Sound Impulse Measurement System (SIMS). Assisted in developing the
testing criteria and procedures for using this new system and taught the new procedure to FTB.
May 2005 - July 2005 - Sergeant, West Virginia State Police.

Detachment Commander, Criminal Investigations, Accident Reconstructionist. Assisted and
instructed local law enforcement in fatal and other serious motor vehicle collisions. Supervised
criminal investigations initiated by detachment members, maintained order and discipline of
detachment members, occasionally conducted internal investigations of department members
from other detachments, and acted as District Commander during the Commander's absence.
March 2004 - May 2005 - Corporal, West Virginia State Police
Assistant Detachment Commander, occasionally acting Detachment Commander. Conducted
criminal investigations, narcotics investigations, investigations of firearms violations and sexual
offenses, and accident reconstructions, and also assisted and instructed local law enforcement in
fatal and other serious motor vehicle collisions. Assisted and instructed local law enforcement in
search warrants for narcotics and fireanns-related investigations and acted as special investigator
for the Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney's Office upon request. Secondary duties as a
Sniper/Observer for the Special Response Team (SRT), Sniper Team North. Assisted in
developing training curriculum and scenarios for this SRT.
May 1995 - March 2004 - Trooper, West Virginia State Police
Performed duties of sworn civilian law enforcement officer, detective, and criminal investigator.
Conducted searches of persons and/or property. Maintained chain-of-custody for persons or
property. Prepared and delivered testimony in court. Perfonned work-related inspections or
evaluations to detennine compliance with laws and regulations. Utilized established handling
procedures for the collection and examination of firearms evidence. Enforced State and Federal
firearms laws. Initiated, conducted, and assisted in criminal investigation(s) of violations of
applicable fireanns laws. Prepared written investigative reports. Presented oral and written
1017
RIF

-2-
Max M. Kingery
briefings to supervisors. Researched, used and/or cited legal reference materials in preparation
of reports or testimony. Supervised investigations and the execution of search warrants for
firearms, narcotics, and other property. Worked with U.S. and/or foreign diplomatic staff in
executing security operations. Served as a sniper for a tactical special response force. Learned
and used unarmed defensive tactics. Maintained familiarization with and marksmanship of
various types of firearms.
September 1991-March 1994 - Sergeant, United States Marine Corps
Aviation Electronics Mechanic and Hybrid Test Station Technician. Primary duties were
assistant shop supervisor and shift supervisor. Was responsible for maintenance turnaround of
items submitted, repair order supplies, and quality control. Trained and assisted junior Marines
in their duties and in development of leadership skills.
September 1986-September 1991 - Private to Corporal, United States Marine Corps.
Served as an infantry squad leader during armed conflicts. Conducted physical surveillance.
Escorted prisoners. Conducted searches of persons and/or property. Performed inspections and
evaluations to determine compliance with regulations of physical and informational security.
Conducted training in a wide variety of firearms and weapons familiarization and marksmanship.
Conducted training in small unit armed combat tactics. Implemented policies and procedures
affecting physical and/or information security. Worked with explosives. Provided armed
security for highly restricted facilities or areas where there is a potential for significant breach of
national security. Worked with foreign nationals. Learned and utilized unarmed combat
techniques.
March 1984 - September 1986 - l 91h Group Special Forces (Arbm.) 2nd Battalion
Served in U.S. Army National Guard Special Forces as a communications specialist.
Occasionally served as a special operations force instructor to other units. Worked with
explosives, a wide variety of weapons, and weapon systems. Conducted airborne operations.
Conducted searches of persons and/or property. Evaluated and implemented physical and
informational security. Provided security risk and threat assessments. Worked with foreign
nationals
EDUCATION and TRAINING:
During service with the Special Forces and again with the United States Marine Corps, I
received specialized training in the use and identification of all military light and heavy
weapons, both domestic and foreign, in use by the U.S. Military and Foreign Military
forces.
Associates in Applied Science - Police Science, Marshall University, 1996
Graduation Certificate - West Virginia State Trooper, West Virginia State Police
Academy, 1995
Graduation Certificate - Huntington High School, 1986
FBI Basic Sniper/Observer course, 2000
Interview/Interrogation Techniques, 1995, 1998
Annual In-Service re-certification course(s), 1997 thru 2004
Cyber Cops 101, 1997
Law Enforcement Seminar, 1998, 1999, 200 l, 2002, 2004
U.S. Army Airborne School, 1985
1018
RIF
-3Max M. Kingery
08/27-28/05 M2 & Thompson (Earl Griffith)

08/02/05 STEN (Mike Curtis)
08/05/05 Lewis (Mike Curtis)
08/09/05 Thompson (Mike Curtis)
08/11105 B.A.R. (Mike Curtis)
08/16/05 M2 Carbine (Mike Curtis)
08/16/05 GCA definitions (Rick Vasquez)
08/17/05 Range certification (Rick Vasquez & Mike Curtis)
08/19/05 NFA Forms and tracking (Garry Shaible)
08/26/05 NFA Definitions (Rick Vasquez)
09/01/05 - 09102105 SIG ARMS (Factory Instructor)
09/12/05 - 09/16/05 H&K Def. (Factory Instructor)
09/20/05 - 09/22/05 Federal Prem. Factory Tour
09126105 - 09/28/05 Glock Inc. (Factory Instructor)
10/09/05 - Gatling Gun (Mike Curtis)
10/27/05 - M-16/AR type (Mike Curtis)
11/07/05 -AK type (Mike Curtis)
11/21/05 -Ml0/11 type (Mike Curtis
11/28/05 - Machinegun conversions (Rick Vasquez, Mike Knapp)
11129105 - MG34/42 (Mike Curtis)
12/12/05 to 12/16/05 - NEXUS
01/06/06- Machinegun shoot (Quantico)
01110/06, 04/10/07, 11114/08 - SIMS and Principles of Acoustic Measurements
03/06/06 to 03/10/06- FNH Armorer's course.
04103106 to 04/07/06 - NEXUS (ammunition and firearms)
06/ 12/06 to 06/ 16/06 - Instructor (USMC Combat Rifle Marksmanship)
09120106 to 09/22/06 - S&W Revolver Armorer's Course.
09/23/06 - Springfield Armory Factory tour.
09125106 to 09/27/06 - S&W Pistol Armorer' s Course.
COURSES PROVIDED AS FEO INSTRUCTOR:
Concealed Firearms and Destructive Devices (Defeating X-Ray) Various locations

Firearms Safety (Firearms NEXUS Course) ATF Center, Martinsburg, WV
Firearms NEXUS ATF Center, Martinsburg, WV ~ FLETC Glenco, GA.
Firearms Identification and Nomenclature (NFA Class) ATF Center, Martinsburg, WV
Ammunition Identification (NFA Class) ATF Center; Martinsburg, WV
Sound Meter Testing (Silencer testing and Evaluation) Various locations
Comprehensive Firearms and Firearms law identification, Huntington, WV
Iraq, Agent pre-deployment firearms certification, Ft. A. P. Hill, VA.
Air Marshal disguised firearms, Pittsburgh, PA
Machineguns and Machinegun conversions, various locations.
Silencers, ATF Center, Martinsburg, WV
1019
RIF

-4Max M. Kingery
CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES:
S&W Academy, Pistol Armorer, 09/27/06

S&W Academy, Revolver Armorer, 09/22/06
NEXUS of ammunition and firearms, 04/07/2006
Fabrique National Herstal, Armorer, 2006
Sig Arms Academy, Armorer, 2005
Glock, Armorer, 2005
Heckler and Koch, Armorer, 2005
Instructor Development Course, 200 l
FBI Basic Sniper/Observer, 2000
FFL from 1987 to 1990
Secret Security Clearance, U.S. Army, 1984
HONORS, AWARDS, MEMBERSHIPS, ETC.:
Certificates of Appreciation, 1984, 1989, 1999, 2003, 2004

National Defense Service Medal
Platoon High Shooter (Meritorious Mast), 1986
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (2"d Award)
Meritorious Mast, 1988, 1992
Southwest Asia Service Medal (2 Stars)
Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award)
Kuwait Liberation Medal
Rifle Expert (6 1h Award)
Combat Action Ribbon
Pistol Master
Navy Unit Commendation
Navy Arctic Service Ribbon
Past Member - West Virginia Trooper's Association
Past Member - National Trooper's Coalition
Past Member - Snipers on Line
Past Member - American Sniper Association
Past Member - Society of Accident Reconstructionists
Member - International Network of Collision/Accident Reconstructionists
Past Member - National Association of Professional Accident Reconstruction Specialists
SEARCH WARRANTS:
FEDERAL:
01/24/06 Miami, FL
01 /25/06 Miami, FL
01/27/06 Jefferson County, WV
l 1/08/06 St. Paul, MN
03/ 12/07 Chicago, II
04/08/09 Detroit, MI
05104109 Clearfield, PA
1020
RIF
- 5Max M. Kingery
STATE:
Many in Berkeley County
Many in Morgan County
2 in Jefferson County
SPECIAL PROJECTS:
Import destruction diagram project - 09105 through

Serial killer weapons - 10/03/05
Zero confirmation of halo sights. - l 0/28/05
Sniper Rifle Accuracy eval (ammo shot group size, Federal v Homady) - 12/27/05
Sniper Rifle Accuracy eval (ammo shot group size, Federal v Homady) - 12/29/05
Sound Impulse Measurement System
(Set up, program, calibrate, teach) - 10/05 thru 02/06
Cartridge Headstamp and Identification Catalog - 04110106 to present
Authored FTBs Silencer Testing SOP - 08/2006
Sniper silencer testing for USMC - 03/2008
SPECIAL EVENTS:
AUSA Show - I 0/04/05, 10/2007

Imports Conference - 10/1 8-10/ 19 of2005
Observer of DSS Sniper Rifle eval/trial - 01105106
SAR Conference - 08/23/06
SHOT Show - 02/2008
COURT APPEARANCES:
Federal Court:
U.S. v James Orr
U.S. v Arthur Harriston
U.S. v Jessie L. Bobbit
U.S. v David R. Olofson
Firearms Case
Narcotics Case
Firearms Case
Firearms Case
Federal Grand Jury:

U.S. v John Wills
U.S. v Lisa Funk
U.S. v Lisa Funk et. al.
U.S. v Alex Grant
Washington D.C.
Firearms Case
Narcotics Case
Narcotics and Firearms Case
Firearms Case
Firearms Definitions (GCA & NFA)
State Grand Jury:

Four appearances (many cases) in Berkeley County
Two appearances (many cases) in Morgan County
1021
RIF
-6Max M. Kingery
San Diego, CA
State Circuit Court:
West Virginia Berkeley County: Numerous, Primarily sex offenses and homicides
Morgan County: Numerous, Primarily sex offenses, firearms violations, and fatal
collisions
Pendleton County: Sex offense
State Magistrate Court:
Numerous, in Berkeley, Morgan, Jefferson, Grant and Hardy Counties
State Traffic Court:
Numerous, in Berkeley, Morgan, Jefferson, Grant, Randolph, Harrison,
and Putnum Counties.
As an Expert FEO:
U.S. Federal Court, Lynchburg, VA - SBS

U.S. Federal Court, Tulsa, OK. - SBS
U.S. Federal Court, Milwaukee, WI - MG
U.S. Federal Court, Richmond, VA - SBS
U.S. Federal Court, Ft. Worth, TX - Sil.
U.S. Federal Court, Prescott, AZ - Sil.
U.S. Federal Court, D.C. - Antique/Firearm
U.S. Federal Court, Nashville, TN - MG
1022
RIF

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
"7.62XS4R CALIBER CONVERSION
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF JOHN R. SPENCER
COMES NOW John R. Spencer and states the following:
1.
I am a Special Agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

("ATF") . 1
I have been so employed
since 1992.
2.
Since
September
2007,
have
been
the
Chief,
Firearms
Technology Branch ("FTB") 2
ATF is the agency charged with the administration and

enforcement of the Gun Contro l Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, and
National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
2
FTB is the office within ATF respo nsible for providing

determinations, technical repo rts, correspondence, and training
classification of firearms, ammuniti on, and implements of war
under the GCA, NFA, and the Arms Expo rt Control Act, 22 U.S.C.
2778.
1023
RIF
3.
In April 2008,
FTB received the Historic Arms Model 54RCCS
Caliber Conversion System, Serial No . Vl
("Defendant")
that
had been submitted for classification.
4.
The
Defendant
was
examined
and
test
fired
by
Firearms
Enforcement Offi c er Max M. Kingery ("FEO Kingery") .
5.
FEO Kingery c lassified the Defendant as a machinegun because

it meets the definition of a mac hinegun found at 26 U.S.C.
5845 {b) .
6.
FEO Kingery's findings and conclusions were documented in a

letter
dated
June
10,
2008,
to
Historic
Arms,
LLC,
("Claimant") the manufacturer or the Defendant.
7.
I signed the June 10, 2008, letter which has been submitted to
this Court as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference.
8.
On July 11,
president
2008,
denying
signed a
his
second letter to Claimant's
request
to
reconsider
ATF's
classification of the Defendant as a machinegun and informing

Claimant's
president
that
he
must
amend
his
Form
2,
registering the Defendant as a machinegun.

2
1024
RIF
9.
The July 11, 2008, letter has been submitted to this Court as
Exhibit 2 and is incorporated by reference.
10.
Claimant's president refused to amend his Form 2 and in August

2008,
the Defendant was
forwarded to ATF' s Atlanta Field
Division for seizure and forfeiture.
11.
1746,
I declare,
under penalty of
perjury, that the facts stated above are true and correct to
the best o f my knowledge and belief.
This 28th day of October, 20 09.
R. SPENCER
U
AU OF ALCOHOL, T BACCO,
REARMS AND EXPLOSIVES
1025
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-9

Government Exhibit 5A
U.S. v. One Historic Arms 54rccs
n.w,""'~s.i.;.c.r,
U.rd51C..~Prwzr1t
PROTECTED
MATERIAL
LIMITED
OFFICIAL USE
,,.,Jr;IQll,-..,,...,,,
DVD-R
copy
FTB TEST FIRING

Government Exhibit 58
U.S . v . One Historic Arms 54rccs
n.-11$.llnll
PROTECTED
MATERIAL
""~--
DVD-R
copy
DeKalb Police Range Test

Firing
April15, 2009
1026
RIF
",a~tJ.-
"__..
llt.llltll
llH\t:l~lUSl
It .. ;
ti.~ ~' 1
j '- - - -
~nom:m1
coR
MMtRl~l
i.tJ~tPtc1'UttCDriP'
P\a\nt\ffS Mot\on for

J udaemen'
summar.J
...
1027
RIF
..

ATLANTA DIVISION
)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
SYSTEM" MACHINE.GUN, SERIAL NO. Vl, )
)
)
Defendant.

Plaintiff,
No. 1:09-CV-00192-GET
CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION
I. Admit that the HA54RCCS is designed to and does expel a projectile by means
of an explosive.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS was designed specifically not to expel a
projectile by means of an explosive unless it is installed into or converted into
a machincgun. As a point of fact, the HA54RCCS by itself does nothing and
will not function in any way.
r
2. Admit that the HA54RCCS was originally registered as a short-barreled rifle.
Response: Admitted, as the HA54RCCS was, and continues to be, registered

as a short-barreled rifle.
3. Admit that the HA54RCCS is a machinegun as it is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by single function of the trigger.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS is designed to not shoot even a single

round unless it is installed in a machinegun. Since it never was a machinegun
it cannot be "restored" under the definition of "bring back to its original
state".
4. Admit that the HA54RCCS utilizes the frame or receiver of a PK-type
machinegun.
l :09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1028
l IP ug(!
RIF
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS does not use the frame or receiver of a
PK-type machinegun. The receiver design is unique unto itself.
5. Admit that the HA54RCCS utilizes the same operating principles/firing
sequence a as a PK-type machinegun.
Denied. The HA54RCCS only utilizes the operating principals of the host
machinegun to which it is installed and does not operate at all outside of one.
The feed cycle of the ammunition does indeed replicate a PK type firearm
both the semiautomatic version as well as the machinegun version. It must be
also be noted that the HA54RCCS and semiautomatic as well as the
machinegun version of PK-type firearms are all gas operated, in that the
operation is dependent on propellant gases to drive the operational
components via a gas piston. The HA54RCCS gas system is different in
design than that of any PK-type firearm of which Claimant is aware.
6. Admit that the HA54RCCS is constructed from a semiautomatic PK-type
receiver which was modified to facilitate automatic fire.
Response: Denied. Although the HA54RCCS is constructed from. portions of

a semiautomatic receiver [among other things], it was constructed and
designed to be installed in and to allow use of 7 .62x54R ammunition in a
lawfully possessed MAC 10 machinegun.
7. Admit that Historic Arms, LLC, modified a semiautomatic PK-type receiver into
a PK-type machinegun receiver when it manufactured the HA54RCCS.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS is constructed partially from portions of

a semiautomatic receiver, although this was only done for expediency .in the
construction of a sample -- the production version would be newly
manufactured. The HA54RCCS is different both dimensionally and design
from that of any known version of a PK-type firearm, semiautomatic or
machinegun. It is specifically designed to b~ installed in and to allow use of
7.62x54R ammunition in a lawfully possessed MAC 10 machinegun.
8. Admit that the HA54RCCS will fire automatically without permanent
modifications.
Response: Objection. The request is vague in that it does not describe what
would constitute a "permanent modification." Based on the foregoing
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1029
21P nge
RIF
objection, Claimant admits that the HA54RCCS can be modified to fire

automatically, and Claimant further admits that such modifications, if made
correctly, could be "undone," and thus restore the HA54RCCS to its preautomatic non-firing condition.
9. Admit that the HA54RCCS contains the following characteristics of a general
purpose machinegun: belt fed, open bolt firing, and fixed firing pin.
Response: Denied. Claimant does not admit that the characteristics listed are
"characteristics of a general purpose machinegun," and notes that "general
purpose machinegun" is neither a defined term nor a common term in the
firearms industry. Claimant admits that the HA54RCCS contains the
characteristics listed as those terms are commonly used in the firearms
industry.
10. Admit that the HA54RCCS is a firearm as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845 (a).
Response: Admitted, as the HA54RCCS was registered as a short-barreled

rifle as instructed by the chief of FTB and as approved by ATF.
11. Admit that the HA54RCCS is a firearm as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
Denied. The HA54RCCS is specifically designed not to function or even

discharge one round unless installed in a machinegun. ATF considers devices
that are identical in function to not even be Title I firearms (i.e. Devices that
function as MAC 10 type "uppers" with built in feed devices, open bolt in
. operation,
and
containing
a
fixed
a
firing
pin.).
To address the specifics of26 USC 5845(b):
The HA54RCCS does not "shoot", just as no MAC 10 type "upper"
shoots, it requires a machinegun receiver to "shoot".
The HA54RCCS is specifically "designed" not to "shoot" as any MAC
10 type "upper" is designed specifically not to shoot, it requires a
machinegun receiver to "shoot".
The HA54RCCS can not be "readily restored to shoot" because it never
was a machinegun, therefore cannot be "brought back into its original
state or condition" of something it never was originally.
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1030
3 IP ag.c
RIF
..
The HA54RCCS does not contain the receiver or frame of a

machinegun.
The HA54RCCS is not designed and intended solely and exclusively, or
a combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a
weapon into a machinegun. It is not possible for the HA54RCCS to
convert a machinegun into a machinegun.
Tfle HA54RCCS is only one part in a "combination of parts" required
to fire more than one shot per function of the trigger.
12. Admit that the HA54RCCS will expel a projectile by means of an explosive
without utilizing a MAC-type receiver.
Response: Denied. By itself, the HA54RCCS will not expel a projectile.

Installing the HA54RCCS into a MAC lower is one method that could be used
to allow the HA54RCCS to expel a projectile. It also is possible to cause the
' HA54RCCS to expel a projectile by adding a combination of parts to the
HA54RCCS to convert it into a machine gun.
13. Admit that the HA54RCCS is not a hammer or striker fired firearm.
f
Response: Admitted
14. Admit that the HA54RCCS utilizes a PK-type machinegun bolt that was
modified by Historic Arms, LLC.
Response: Admitted.
15. Admit that the HA54RCCS (with or without a MAC receiver) is what is
commonly referred to as a belt fed general purpose machinegun.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS is commonly referred to as a "MAC

upper."
16. Admit that the addition of a - 1 inch x 1 inch aluminum plate, a short length of
chain, a small piece of duct tape and tensioning bolt are not permanent
modifications.
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Anns, LLC
1031
41P age
RIF
Response: Denied. The request does not indicate by what means the
collection of parts described is added, nor what the collection of parts is added
to. For example, welding the metal collection of parts into place may be
"permanent." Taping them into place may not be "permanent."
17. Admit that the HA54RCCS would fire automatically until the ammunition was
expended if it were loaded with a belt of ammunition and positioned against any
solid object (such that the object would contain the bolt, recoil spring and
operating rod) and the bolt was retracted and released.
Response: Objection. The request does not seek admission of an existing fact,
but rather calls for prediction that a hypothetical set of facts would produce a
certain result. Subject to the foregoing objection, Claimant admits that it is
possible that any MAC upper, including the HA54RCCS, could be made to
fire as described in the request.
18. Admit that the HA54RCCS would fire automatically ntil the ammunition was
expended if it were loaded with a belt of ammunition and any object or objects
capable of containing the bolt, recoil spring and operating rod were attached to the
rear of the HA54RCCS and the bolt was retracted and released.
Response: Objection. The request does not seek admission of an

existing fact, but rather calls for prediction that a hypothetical set of
facts would produce a certain result. Subject to the foregoing
objection, Claimant admits that it is possible that any MAC upper,
including the HA54RCCS, could be made to fire as described in the
request.
19. Admit that the HA54RCCS is readily restorable to fire automatically.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS can not be "readily restored to shoot"

because it never was a machinegun, therefore cannot be "brought back into its
original state or condition" of something it never was originally.
20. Admit that it would hot take a skilled machinist to enable the HA54RCCS to
fire automatically
1:09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1032
SI P age
RIF
Response: Objection. The reqest is vague in that it does not specify whether
it refers to the HA54RCCS firing automatically with, or without, the MAC
lower for which it was intended. Subject to the foregoing objection, Claimant
admits that it does not take a skilled machinist to install the HA54RCCS into
the MAC lower for which it was intended, and that such combination of
HA54RCCS and MAC lower would be expected to fire automatically (because
the MAC lower is a machine gun). It would take somewhat more skill, but
probably not a "skilled machinist," to employ a combination of parts to
attempt to convert the HA54RCCS into a machinegun, as Plaintiff claims to
have done.
21. Admit that the HA54RCCS will fire automatically with the addition of
common pieces of hardware and that this could be accomplished in a few minutes
w_ith few, if any, common tools.
Response: Objection. The request is vague and does not request an

admission of an existing fact, but rather calls for a prediction of what would
happen if unspecified "pieces of hardware" were installed with unspecified
"few, in any, common tools." Subject to the foregoing objection, Claimant
admits that it is possible to convert a MAC upper, including the HA54RCCS,
into a machine gun using a collection of parts.
22. Admit that the 1- inch x 1 inch aluminum plate, a short length of chain, a
small piece of duct tape and tensioning bolt are not a conversion device designed
to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.
Response:
device.
Denied. As described, the parts could comprise a conversion
small piece of duct tape and tensioning bolt are not a combination of parts
designed to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.
Response: Denied. As described, the parts could comprise a collection of

parts.
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1033
61Page
RIF
91
Case 1:09-cv-oo:fif2'.G~-'riSocument 43-11 File1fio?2Hto'9 ~age 7 of B
24. Admit that if the HA54RCCS is not a PK-type machinegun, that it is an

entirely new machinegun that is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to
shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by single
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS lacks the characteristics described in the

request. For a more thorough response, see the response to Request for
Admission No. 11 above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing substantive responses to

the Plaintiff's first requests for admission are true and correct.
Dated May 29, 2009
Objections raised by:
onroe
omeyatLaw
640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
678-362-7650
john.monroe 1Cf.ilearthlink.net
1:09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1034
RIF
H.M. Whitesides, Jr.

N.C. Bar 13151
228 East Boulevard, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Telephone: (704) 376-6455
Facsimile: (704) 332-5010
hmwhitesides@whitesideslaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR CLAIMANT
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1035
81Pnge
RIF
2ooa:os-1s os:2s
>>'
3042so1?01
P1
Case 1 :09-cv-o~i.:~ET poc~ent 43-li fiile~0/28/0'9 Page 1of4

n1~lor1e "l1rm$ ~.w.lJ.

706-675-0287 Home
706-675-0818 Shop
June 16, 2008
Mr. John R. Spencer

Chie~ Firearms Technology Branch
244 Needy Rd.
Martinsburg. WV 25405
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I received the Firearms Technology Branch's (FTB) guidance document (903050:MMK
3311/2008-472] referring to the latest submission by my company, Historic Arms, I.LC, for a
proposed product, a firearm of original design. This firearm has been designed as a
short-barreled rifle, because its barrel is less than 16 inches in length, and thus falls under
purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA}, and must be registered in the Nationa! Firearms
Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR).
J am concerned about the apparent Jack of a written standard used to exami,ne and tesl our
submitted ilrearm. It appears that our submitted firearm was initially tested according to one set
of criteria, and that FTB detennined and verified that it is a firearm because it fired a projectile.
{see page 6) .
Since it fires a projectile~ has a barrel less than 16 inches in length, and according ta FTB (see
page 7} is intended to use the shoulder stock and pistol grip of MAC-type registered machinegun
in which it is installed, it is a short-barreled rifle according to ATF regulations and United States
Code. The submitted firearm was registered in the NFRTR by my company as a shortbarrele~
rifle via an ATF Form 2 priqr to submission to FTB.
'
.
bur con~em is that FTB was apparently dissatisfied with the results of the nest live fire test.
because FTB changed the testing criteria and live fire tested the submitted firearm again. The
new criteria for this second live tire test [see page 7, second paragraph} cannot be found in any of
our company's engineering books or manual~ and does not appear to be a valid scientific testing
procedure\ for the following reasons:
Using a foreign object to cause a firearm to fire fully automatic has historically been viewed
by ATF to be a "conversion device," under the reasoning that the foreign object converts the
firearm to a machinegun. One example of the use of such a foreign object is the use of a
shoestring. memorialized by ATFIFTB in three different Letter Rulings.
There is no valid SJJd reliable evidence that the new criteria FTB ~ be~n universally applied
to all MAC-type appers. In fact. several MAC-type uppers incorporate an ammunition feed
1036
RIF
2000.06-16 08:27
case 1:09-cv-00192-GET ocreument 4JS412QllQJed 10/28/99.
Page
2 of 4
P 214
device on the uupper", as does the fireann submitted by Historic Anns. LLC. 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 11Flemming," (I) 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 firing.
Such fully automatic firing under these conditions -- tenned "sputter fire" because it is
uncontrolled firing -- is dangerous.
On page 4, a sample MAC-I 0 upper is shown. ATF does not consider this sample MAC-10
upper to be a firearm; consequently, no Form 4473 or NICS check during over the counter
sales is required; and there is no requirement for this MAC-10 upper to be serial numbered,
lfFfB tested this sample MAC-10 upper using the same criteria FTB used to test the firearm
submitted by Historic Arms, LLC, the sample MAC- t 0 upper would fire a projectile.
According to ATF regulations and United States Code, the sample MAC-10 upper is,
therefore, a fireann. Since ATF does not consider a MAC-10 upper to be a firearm, the
materials that FTB added during the second test of the ftreann submitted by Historic Arms,
LLC (aluminum plate, chain and tensioning bolts) must be a fireann, fireann receiver, or a
device intended to convert a fireann to a machinegun.
Also, importantly, if FTB applied the the first test it applied to the firearm submitted by
Historic Anns, LLC to the sample MAC-10 upper pictured in FrB's guidance, FTB would
classify the MAC-I 0 upper as a firearm because it fires a projectile. In fact, as noted~ ATF
does not regard the sample MAC-10 upper as a fireann at this time, which contradicts FTB's
current classification of the fireann submitted by Historic Anns, LLC in that regard.
The materials FTB added converted the firearm submitted by Historic Arms, LLC into a
machinegun; therefore. the materials constitute a machinegun receiver, a machincgun. or a
conversion device.
FTB's manipulation oftest criteria in order to achieve a specific result is clear and reliab1e
proof of"Outcome Based Testing! Talren at face value, it appears that the purpose of the
second test was to produce the outcome of finding a way to convert the Historic Arms, LLC
submitted firearm into a machinegun.
Since FTB has not applied the first or second test criteria to other MAC-10 uppers, and doing
so would result in a FTB determining that aU other MAC~10 uppers are machine guns or at
least fireanns, it appears that FTB has singled out the firearm submitted by Historic Amis,
LLC to preclude its manufacture and sale. (Please refer to the enclosed table.]
In summary, the second test FIB used was not valid. The reasons are that the second test1s
criteria and application ( 1) has not been consistent or uniformly applied to all MAC-I 0 uppers,
(2) apparently singles out the firearm submitted by Historic Anns, LLC to preclude its
manufacture and sale, and (3) ignores the fact that applying the second test to other MAC- t0
uppers would convert them into machineguns, as was the case with the fireann submitted by
Historic Arms, LLC. Also, importantly, if the test FI'B applied to the firearm submitted by
1037
RIF
2ooa-OS-16 08:29 Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET DQWment ~01 ffiled 10/28/09r Page 3 of 4
P 314
Historic Arms. LLC was applied to the sample MAC-10 upper pictured in FTB's guidance, the
MAC IO upper would be classified as a firearm because it fires a projectile. In fac~ as not~
ATF does not regard the sample MAC-I0 upper as a fireaon at this time.
It is difficult to understand how FTB would single out a fireann that is not a machine gun,
convert it into a machinegun and thus preclude its manufacture and sale. while ignoring the fact
that FTB could convert millions ofMAC-10 uppers th.at ATF currently does not define as
firearms, into firearms or machineguns.
I believe a human error occurred; that we are all human and make errors; and that this error can
be addressed with a correction Jetter from FTB; and the retum of my submitted short barrel rifle.
If this is not the case please notify me immediately
Respectfully,
Len Savage
1038
RIF
zom;.os. is oe:3oCase 1:09-cv-00192-GET Doj;:1Jment 4ibztio fi~d 10/28/09 Page 4 of 4
P 4/4
DEVICES FOR MACTYPE REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS

THAT FIRE FROM AN OPEN BOLT CONFIGURATION
Name of
firearm or
device,
Classification
under the GCA
Results of FfB Results of FfB

Test#l
Test#2
rducttape,metal (chain,metal
plate,plastic
plate,tension
Not a firearm
tiesI
Firearm
boltsI
Fireann
Not a firearm
Not a firearm
Machinegun
Machinegwi
Me.chine1ZU11
Mechinegun
Not a fireann
Notafiream
Machinegun
Macbjnegun
Not a firearm
Not a fireann
Machinegun
Machinegun
Fireann**
Firearm:
Short Barreled
Rifle
Firearm
Machinegun
Sample MAC-10 Not a firearm

upper shown
Calico uooer"
Notafuearm
Flemming type
Not a fireann
.22 upper
Anthony Smith
Classlfteation
under the NFA
Sowni uoner*
Stoney Creek
Sowni upper
54RCCU
7.62xS4R
Caliber
Conversion Unit
--
All of the these have been classified by ATF/FTB to be NON-firearms.

Historic Arms LLC intentions are to keep "prohibited persons" from possessing a S4R Caliber
Conversion Device to address a stated ATF concern. ATF considers "uppers" for a MAC-Type
firearm to not be a firearm or the frame or receiver of a fireann. A convicted felon could in
theory own [or in Mr. Flemming's case] manufacture these "uppers,. openly for distribution to
general public.
1039
RIF
'
OMB No, 1140.0012 (0713112007)
U.S. Department or Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fircanns and Explosives
Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported
The undersigned hereby serves notice or the tn.aaractare, reacth'9tion, or importation of firearms as required by 5841 of the National Firearms Act, Title 16, U.S.C. Chapter 53.
I. Type ofNotlcca. Fin:anns on this Notice are (check one): Manufactured
Rcactiviatcd
Imported (complete b If cJ
I3.
2. Name and Address (including trade name, if any)
LENNIS F. SAVAGE m
mSTORIC ARMS LLC
1486 CHERRY RD.
FRANKLIN, GA 30217
tle.
lb. Permit Nwnbcr
Expiration Date
Sl>
14. Employer Identification Number and Class
Federal Firearms License Number
atO
I 16-1633863
158149 07 8G 01270
UI
CD
5. Number of Fireanns Covered by this Notice
-;:
16. Phone Number
0
0
7~75--0818
tO
l\J
I
7. Date of Manufacture, ReactMzation or Release from Customs
Sole Proprietor
Partnership
8. Description ofFircann(s)
Type ofFircarm
(See /nstn1c1/on I c)
a
SBR
Corporation
G)
21-APRIL-08
Additional Description
(Ste Instruction Je)
b
Caliber Gauge
or Size
Model
d
c
7.62X54R
7.62X54R CALIBER CONVERSION SYSTEM
54RCCS
BancI
Length
e
15.75"
Overall
Length
Serial Number
(See /rutrvction Jd)
27"-38"
0
0
c:
CD
::J
.....
VJ
w
~
w
I
]}
CD
a.
'
Q
l\J
co
tO
UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE that I have enmined this notice offirearms manufactured, reactivated
or imported and, to the best or my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complet~
;;z:-<M:m~?T-~i~
...
A TF Use Restrictions (Ifany)

Imported Under 26 U.S.C. 5844 For
Use (A) By o Government Agency, (2)
For Scientific or Research Purposes. or
(3) As a Model or Sales Sample.
D
(Note: machineguns are not subjecr to

1/iese restrictions)
10. Name and Title of Authorized Official
11. Filing Date
Lennis F. Savage Ill, President
21-APRIL-08
Machim:gun Manufactured or
Imported After May 19. 1986
(18 u.s.c. 912(0))
..."'
EXHIBIT
19
:i
0
ATl' EForm
RIF2 (5320 2J
RC\-lscd Jol):.;?DIM
"'O
Q)
CD
~
i c~:l1'~ll::t ~
I 'rht./09 -X6
Receipt u ate
1040
>
NFA Control Number
27 CFR 179.11: MEANING OF

TERMS
The KG-9 pistol Is a machlnegun as

defined In the Natlonal Firearms
Act.
ATF Rul. 82-2
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms has examined a firearm
Identified as the KG-9 pistol. The KG9 is a 9 millimeter caliber, semlautomatlc
firearm which Is blowback operated
and which fires from the open
bolt position with the boll Incorporating
a fixed firing pin. In addition, a
component part of the weapon Is a
disconnecter whlch prevents more
lhan one shot being fired with a single
The dlsconneclor Is designed in the
KG-9 pistol in such a way that a simple
modification to It, such as cutting,
filing, or grinding, allows lhe pistol to
operate automatically. Thus, this simple
modification to the disconnector
together with lhe configuralion of the
above design features (blowback
operation, firing from the open bolt
position, and fixed firing pin) in the
KG-9 permits the firearm to shoot
automatically more than one shot,
without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger. The above
combination or design features as
employed in the KG-9 is normally not
found In the typical sporting firearm.
The National Firearms Act, 26
U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machlnegun
to Include 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 "shoots automatically" definition
covers weapons that will function
automatically. The "readily restorable"
definition defines weapons which
previously could shoot automatically
but will not In their present condition.
The "designed" definition includes
those weapons which have not previously
functioned as machlneguns but
possess design features which facilitate
full automatic fire by simple modification
or elimination of existing
component parts.
Held: The KG-9 pistol is designed
to shoot automatically more than one
shot, without function of lhe trigger.
Consequently, the KG-9 pistol ls a
machlnegun as defined in section
1041
RIF
5845{b) of the Act.

With respect to the machinegun
classification of the KG-9 pistol under
the National Firearms Act, pursuant to
26 U.S.C. 7805{b), this ruling will
not be applied to KG-9 pistols manufactured
before January 19, 1982.
Accordingly, KG-9 pistols manufactured
on or after January 19, 1982,
will be subject to all the provisions of
the National Firearms Act and 27
CFR Part 179.
[ATFB 1982-118)
TERMS
The SM10 and SM11A1 pistols and

SAC carbines are machlneguns as
defined In the National Firearms
Act.
ATF Rul. 82-8
and Firearms has reexamined firearms
identified as SM 1O pistols,
SM11A1 pistols, and SAC carbines.
The SM 10 is a 9 millimeter or .45ACP
caliber, semiautomatic firearm; the
SM11A1 Is a .3BOACP caliber, semiautomatic
firearm; and the SAC carbine
is a 9 millimeter or .45ACP
caliber, semiautomatic firearm. The
weapons are blowback operated, fire
from the open bolt position with the
bolt Incorporating a fixed firing pin,
and the barrels of the pistols are
threaded to accept a silencer. In addition,
component parts of the weapons
are a disconnecter and a trip
which prevent more than one shot
being fired with a single function of
the trigger.
The disconnector and trip are designed
in the SM10 and SM11A1
pistols and in the SAC carbine (firearms)
in such a way that a simple
modification to them, such as cutting,
filing, or grinding, allows the firearms
to operate automatically. Thus, this
simple modification to the disconneclor
or trip, together with the configuration
of the above deslgn features
(blowback operating, firing from the
open bolt position, and fixed firing pin)
In the SM10 and SM11A1 pistols and
In the SAC carbine, permits the firearms
to shoot automatically, more
than one shot, without manual reloading,
by a single function of the trigger.
The above combination of design
features as employed in the SM10
and SM 11A 1 pistols and the SAC
carbine are normally not found In
1042
RIF
typical sporting firearms.

U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machinegun
to include any weapon which
shoots, Is designed to shoot, or can
be readily restored to shoot, automalically
manual reloading, by a single funcllon
of the trigger.
automatically. The "readily restorabte"
definition defines weapons
which previously could shoal automatically
but will not in their presenl
condition. The "designed" definition
Includes those weapons which have
not previously functioned as machlneguns
but possess design features
which facilitate full automatic fire
by a simple modification or eliminatlon
of existing component parts.
Held: The SM 10 and SM 11A 1
pistols and the SAC carbine are designed
to shoot automallcally more
than one shot, without manual reloading,
Consequently, the SM10 and
SM 11A1 pistols and SAC carbines
are machineguns as defined In Section
5845(b) of the Act.
With respecl to the machinegun
classification of the SM10 and
SM11A1 pistols and SAC carbines,
under the National Firearms Act, pursuant
to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), this ruling
will not be applied to SM10 and
SM11A1 pistols and SAC carbines
manufactured or assembled before
June 21, 1982. Accordingly, SM10
and SM 11A1 pistols and SAC carbines,
manufactured or assembled on
or after June 21, 1982, will be subject
to all the provisions of the National
Firearms Act and 27 CFR Part 179.
[ATFB 1982-2 49)
TERMS
The YAC STEN MK II carbine Is a
machlnegun as defined In the National
Firearms Act.
ATF Rul. 83-5
and Firearms has examined a firearm
Identified as the YAC STEN MK II
carbine. The YAC STEN MK II carbine
Is a 9 millimeter caliber firearm
which has identical design characteristics
to the original selective fire
STEN submachinegun designed by
Reginald Vernon Shepherd and Harold
1043
RIF
John Turpin. The weapon Is

blowback operated and fires from the
open bolt position with the bolt incorporating
a fixed firing pin. In addition,
a component part of the weapon Is a
trip lever (dlsconnector) which has
been modified to prevent more than
one shot being fired with a single
The trip lever (dlsconnector) Is
designed In such a way that a simple
modification to it, such as bending,
breaking or cutting, allows the
weapon lo operate automatically.
Thus, this simple modification to the
trip lever (disconnector), together with
STEN submachlnegun design features
and components In the YAC
STEN MK II carbine, permits the firearm
to shoot automatically, more than
one shot, without manual reloading by
a single function of the trigger. The
above combination of machinegun
design features as employed In the
YAC STEN MK II carbine are not
normally found In the typical sporting
firearm.
U.S.C. 5845(b), defines a machlnegun
to Include any weapon which
shoots, is designed to shoot, or can
be readily restored to shoot, automatically
of the trigger.
automatically. The "readily reslorable"
definition defines weapons
which previously could shoot automatically
but wlll not In their present
condition. The "designed" definition
includes weapons which have not
previously functioned as machlneguns
but possess specific machlnegun
design features which facilitate
automatic fire by simple alteration or
elimination of existing component
parts.
Held: The YAC STEN MK II carbine
is designed to shoot automatically
of lhe trigger. Consequently, the
STEN MK II semiautomatic carbine is
a machlnegun as defined In Section
5845(b) of the Act.
[ATFB 1983-3 35]
1044
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 57
Filed 08/20/1 O Page 1 of 23

ATLANTA DIVISION
FILED IN Cl.fRKs OFFI

u.s.nc
"'. umnta
AUG 2-0 1010

II
Plaintiff,
v.

SYSTEM" MA.CHINEGUN, SERIAL NO.
Vl,
Defendant .
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 1:09-cv-0192-GET
j
I
HISTORIC ARMS, LLC,
!
:
:
l
Claimant.
Ii
ORD BR
The above-styled matter is presently before the court on:

1)
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [docket no . 43];

and
2)
Claimant Historic Arms, LLC' s motion for summary judgment

[docket no. 38].
This is a
forfeiture
action filed
by the United States
("plaintiff" or the "government") on January 23, 2009, pursuant to

26
u.s.c.
5872, to forfeit and condemn one Historic Arms Model
54RCCS "7. 62x54R Caliber Conversion System" Machinegun,
Serial
Number Vl (the "defendant") , as a firearm involved in a violation

of 26
u.s.c.
5841 and 5861(d).
1045
The complaint alleges that on
RIF
April 21, 2008, Mr. Lennis Savage, president of Historic Arms, LLC
(''claimant"), a .f ederally-licensed firearms manufacturer, provided
notice that claimant had manufactured the defendant,
barreled rifle."
''short-
The defendant was subsequently classified by the
Firearms
Technology Branch
Tobacco,
Firearms,
( "FTB")
and Explosives
of
the
Bureau of Alcohol,
( "ATF" or the ''Bureau")
as a
"machinegun," but claimant disagreed with the classification and

refused
to
file
an
amended
ATF
Form
Notice
of
Firearms
Manufactured or Imported ("Form 2") reflecting that classification.

The
government
forfeiture
on
the
machinegun
which
asserts
grounds
is
not
that
that
the
it
defendant
is
properly
unlawful
registered
Firearms Registration and Transfer Record
in
is
subject
to
possess
the
( "NFRTR") .
to
a
National
Claimant
contends that the government has failed to satisfy the burden

required to justify the forfeiture because it has not shown that
the defendant contains a
weapon
that
automatically,
"shoots
machinegun receiver,
automatically,"
or that
it
can be
is
or that it is a
"designed
"readily restored"
to
to
shoot''
shoot
automatically under the National Firearms Act's definition of a

machinegun.
Claimant filed an answer to the complaint for forfeiture on
February 10, 2009.
On the same date,
claimant filed a claim of
legal interest requesting that the defendant property be returned

because claimant designed, manufactured, registered, and voluntarily
Page2
1046
RIF
Filed 08/20/1 O. Page 3 of 23
submitted the property to the ATF for

requested
by
FTB
Chief
John
Spencer.
technical
In
evaluation as
claimant' s
view,
disagreement over the defendant's proper classification does not

create a violation of federal criminal law requiring forfeiture of
the property.
Discovery in the case was extended by consent of the
parties until October 8, 2009.

the government each filed a
On October 28, 2009, claimant and

motion for summary judgment.
The
motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for review.
Applicable Law
Under 26 U.S.C.
5872(a), property involved in a violation of
the National Firearms Act ( "NFA") , 26 U.S. C. Chapter 53, is subject

to seizure and forfeiture to the United States.
may
file
claim of
ownership
government for forfeiture.
of
However, a person
the property seized by the
19 U.S.C.
1608; Rule G(S), Fed. R.
Civ. P., Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and

Asset Forfeiture Actions.
Once a claim of ownership is filed, the
government must satisfy its initial burden by demonstrating that it

had probable cause to believe that the property was involved in a
violation of law.
Once the government establishes probable cause,
the burden shifts to the claimant to establish by a preponderance

of the evidence that
the item was improperly seized.
Summary
judgment ordering forfeiture is appropriate when the government

establishes probable cause, and the claimant fails to show that the
facts constituting probable cause did not exist.
United States
Page 3
1047
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-OO192-GET Document 57
Filed 08/20/10 Page 4 of 23
v. Two Parcels of Real Prop., 92 F.3d 1123, 1128 (11th Cir. 1996).
In other words, once the government meets its initial probable cause
showing,
the
claimant
must
set
forth
facts
showing
that
the
government's classification of the defendant as a machinegun is not

entitled to deference in order to avoid -summary judgment.
There is inconsistent authority on the amount of deference
ATF firearm classifications merit.
Cf. Modern Muzzleloading, Inc.
v. Magaw, 18 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35-36 (D.D.C. 1998) (explicitly applying

Chevron deference to review of ATF classification of Knight Disc
Rifle as a firearm),
(10th
Cir.
involved
with York v. Higgins,
1985) ("Although
in
this
case
is
an
not
774 F.2d 417, 419-20
interpretive
rule
granted
'force
the
like
of
the
one
law'
of
legislative rules, it still requires deferential treatment by the

court.").
However, the courts have consistently recognized that
when such decisions are shown to be the product of substantial

agency expertise, experience and analysis, they are entitled to at
least the standard of Skidmore deference, under which the weight of
an agency's interpretation "depend[s] upon ... all those factors
which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control."
Skidmore v. Swift
&
Co.,
323 U.S.
134
( 1944) .
See also United
States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229 (2001) ("The fair measure of
deference to an agency administering its own statute has
been
understood to vary with circumstances, and courts have looked to the

degree
of
the
agency's
care,
its
consistency,
formality,
and
Pitge4
1048
RIF
relative expertness,
position").
Filed 08/20/10 Page 5of23
and to the persuasiveness of the agency's
Accordingly, ATF firearm classifications are usually
reviewed under an "arbitrary and capricious" or similar standard.

See Akins
2009)
y.
United
States,
312
App' x 197,
F.
200
(11th Cir.
(holding that ATF's decision reclassifying an apparatus as a
machinegun was not arbitrary and capricious).

Under 26 U.S.C.
5861(d) of the NFA, it is unlawful for any
person to possess a firearm that is not properly registered with the

federal government, punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 years in
prison, id.
machinegun,
5871.
The NFA includes within the term "firearm" a
5845(a)
(6),
and further defines a machinegun as
"any weapon which shoots, ... or can be readily restored to shoot,

single function of the trigger," iQ.
States, 511 U.S. 600, 603
(1994).
5845(b).
Possession of an unregistered
machinegun also is prohibited under Section

Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"), 18 U.S.C.
1986.
Staples v. United
922 (o)
of the Gun
921-929, as amended in
United States y. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1385 n.3 (11th Cir.
1997) ("It
is a
federal crime for anyone,
including a licensed
firearms dealer, to possess a machinegun unless (1) the weapon is

being transferred by a
licensed dealer to a
state or federal
governmental agency, such as a police department, or (2) the weapon

was manufactured and lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986, the
PageS
1049
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 57 Filed 08/20/10. Page 6 of 23
effective date of the federal law banning possession of machineguns.
11
Under the NFA, each manufacturer must register in the NFRTR

central registry each firearm that it produces. 26 U.S.C.
5841 (b).
To register the firearm, the manufacturer is required to complete

and file an accurate Form 2 notice, executed under the penalties of
perjury, no later than the close of business the next business day
after the
firearm's
manufacture.
The
notice must
accurately
identify the firearm by date of manufacture, type, model, length of

barrel, overall length, caliber, gauge or size, serial number, the
name and address of the manufacturer, and the place where the
manufactured firearm will be kept.
479.103.
Id.
584l(a);
As mentioned above, any firearm involved in a violation
of the NFA is subject to seizure and forfeiture.
5872(a}.
27 C.F.R.
26
u.s.c.
Accordingly, the dispositive issue in this matter is
whether the defendant property is an unregistered "machinegun" as

defined by the NFA.
Standard
Courts should grant summary judgment when "there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact ... and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The moving
party "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the

district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those
portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any' which it
Page6
1050
RIF
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material

fact . "
(1986) .
Celotex Corp. v . Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106
s. Ct. 2548
That burden is "discharged by 'showing'-that is, pointing
out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to

support the nonmoving party's case."
Id. at 325;
s.1..Q
States v. Four Parcels of Real Prop., 941 F.2d 1428, 1437
United
(11~
Cir.
1991) .
Once the movant has met this burden, the opposing party must
then present evidence establishing that there is a genuine issue of
material fact.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
The nonmoving party must
go beyond the pleadings and submit evidence such as affidavits,

depositions and admissions that are sufficient to demonstrate that
if allowed to proceed to trial, a jury might return a verdict in his
favor.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257, 106
S. Ct. 2505 (1986).
If he does so, there is a genuine issue of fact
that requires a trial.
In making a determination of whether there
is a material issue of fact, the evidence of the non-rnovant is to

be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
favor.
~at
(11th Cir.
255; Rollins
1987).
y,
However,
TechSouth, Inc., 633 F.2d 1525, 1529

an issue is not genuine if it is
unsupported by evidence or if it is created by evidence that is

"merely colorable'' or is "not significantly probative."
477 U. S. at 249-50.
Anderson,
Similarly, a fact is not material unless it is
identified by the controlling substantive law as an essential
Page7
1051
RIF
Case 1:09-cv~00192-GET Document 57
element of the nonmoving party's case.
Id:_ at 248.
Thus, to create
a genuine issue of material fact for trial, the party opposing the
summary judgment must come forward with specific evidence of every
element essential to his case with respect to which (1) he has the
burden of proof, and (2) the summary judgment movant has made a
plausible showing of the absence of evidence of the necessary
element.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.

Facts
In light of
the foregoing
standard,
the court
finds
the
following facts for the purpose of resolving the parties' motions

for summary judgment only.
As a Special (Occupational) Taxpayer
("SOT") and Federal Firearms Licensee ( "FFL") , claimant is permitted

under federal law to manufacture and sell NFA firearms.
Because it
is unlawful for persons to own, transfer or possess machineguns

manufactured after May 19, 1986, it is not uncommon for owners of
"pre-ban" machineguns to look for ways to equip the guns with
caliber conversion devices so that the machineguns may be used to
shoot a variety of ammunition calibers.
For example, with the use
of a caliber conversion device, a Military Armament Corporation

("MAC") type machinegun (designed originally to use .380 ACP, 9 mm
and .45 ACP pistol caliber ammunition) can be converted to shoot
rifle caliber ammunition.
Claimant is an experienced designer and manufacturer of firearm
systems and components.
In order to avoid regulatory issues with

Page8
1052
RIF
its designs and inventions, claimant often submits a prototype of

the
item to
the ATF's
FTB
for
classification
in advance
of
manufacture.
On or about April 21, 2008, claimant completed the design and
fabrication of defendant to act as a caliber conversion device for
a MAC-type machinegun so that when defendant is installed on a MAC
machinegun,
7. 62x54R
the MAC can fire automatically multiple rounds of
caliber ammunition. Claimant completed an ATF Form 2,
providing notice that. it had manufactured one Historic Arms Model

54RCCS 7. 62x54R Caliber Conversion System, Serial Number Vl.
On the
form, under the heading, "Type of Firearm," claimant entered "SBR,"

an abbreviation for "short-barreled rifle."
Based on that form,
defendant was registered in the NFRTR as a short-barreled rifle.

Also on April 21, 2008, claimant submitted the defendant to the
ATF's FTB in Martinsburg, West Virginia for a technical evaluation.
In claimant's letter accompanying the defendant, claimant asked the
FTB to verify (1) that the defendant is designed to be fired from
che shoulder;
(2)
that it has a barrel length of less than 16
inches; and (3) that it is designed for exclusive use in MAC-type

machineguns as a caliber conversion system.
Firearms Enforcement Officer Max Kingery ("FEO Kingery") was
assigned to evaluate and classify the defendant.
In FEO Kingery's
four-plus years with the ATF, he has classified over 1, 000 firearms.
He also has instructed local, state and 'federal law enforcement
Page9
1053
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-OO192-GET Document 57
Filed 08/20/1 O Page 1Oof 23
officers on the proper identification and classification of firearms

under both the GCA and the NFA.
FEO Kingery's examination noted
that the defendant was comprised of

{1)
modified
PKM- type
receiver
the following components:
( "PKM"
Kalashnikova, or "Kalashnikov's Machinegun,

mated with a MAC-type upper;
and feed-tray assembly;
(4)
15
(3)
long;
(6)
11
for
Pulemyot
Modernized version),
an unmodified PKM-type top cover
(2)
a newly- manufactured plastic forearm;
a shortened PKM- type gas system;

3/4 11
stands
(5)
a barrel approximately
modified PKM- type machinegun bolt carrier
assembly; and (7) a PKM- type bolt assembly.
A receiver is "(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."
27 C.F.R.
479.11.
It is also that portion of the weapon bearing the firearm's serial

number.
l.Q_,_ 479.102.
FEO Kingery observed that the defendant was belt fed, and that
it utilized open bolt firing and a fixed firing pin.
The defendant,
however, as submitted, was not in firing condition, as it lacked a

trigger group
and rear trunnion/stock mounting block.
After
examining the defendant, FEO Kingery concluded that in addition to

containing a frame or receiver of a machinegun, the defendant could
shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading,
Page IO
1054
RIF
Filed 08/20/10 Page 11 of 23
To verify that the defendant shot automatically, FEO Kingery

tested the defendant by attaching a one-inch by one-and-a-quarterinch aluminum plate to the rear of the defendant utilizing duct tape
and plastic zip ties (due to the absence of a rear trunnion block
to hold the recoil spring and guide rod in place) .
Kingery then
loaded the defendant with three rounds of commercially available

7.62x54R Wolf brand ammunition and retracted and released the bolt
operating handle to initiate the firing sequence.
However, the
force of the recoil broke the zip ties and duct tape, and the
defendant failed to chamber and fire the second and third rounds.
Next, FEO Kingery reattached the aluminum plate to the rear of
the defendant utilizing a short piece of chain and a tensioning
bolt.
The attachment took approximately two minutes and required
no special tools or equipment. A belt of three rounds of ammunition

was loaded into the defendant; the operating handle was pulled back
and released.
The defendant fired all three rounds automatically,
without manual reloading.

with the same result.
This test was repeated and videotaped,

Based on FEO Kingery' s
evaluation and
testing, the ATF concluded that the defendant met the definition of
a machinegun, under 26
u.s.c.
584S(b}, because it contained the
frame or receiver of a machinegun and shot automatically more than

one shot, by a single function of the trigger.
On June 10, 2008, the ATF sent a letter to claimant informing
its president that the defendant had been classified by the ATF as
Page 11
1055
RIF
Filed 08/20/10 Page 12 of 23
a machinegun, and therefore the defendant needed to be registered

with ATF's National Firearms Act Branch by the close of business of
the next business day following claimant's receipt of the letter.
The eight - page letter was prepared by FEO Kingery, reviewed and
approved by FTB Assistant Chief Richard Vasquez and FTB's counsel,
and signed by FTB Chief John Spencer.
In a letter dated June 16,
2008, claimant objected to the ATF's classification and asked that

the classification be corrected and that the "short-barrel rifle"
f irearrn be returned.
In July 2008, the ATF denied claimant's request to reconsider

its decision to classify defendant as a machinegun, and informed
claimant's president that he must amend his Form 2 and register the
defendant as a machinegun.
Claimant also was notified that failure
to provide proper registration documents would result in ATF seizing

and
instituting
forfeiture
proceedings
against
the
defendant.
Claimant's president refused to amend the Form 2, and in August

2008, the defendant was forwarded to ATF's Atlanta Field Division
where it was seized for forfeiture.
Discussion
Congress delegated authority to the ATF to interpret and

enforce the NFA.
defines a
{1)
27 C.F.R.
"rnachinegun"
479.
broadly,
"any weapon which shoots,
Section 5845(b) of the NFA
including in its description:
is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without
Page 12
1056
RIF
Filed 08/20/10 Page 13 of 23
manual reloading, by a single function of the triggern;
(2) "the
frame or receiver of any such weapon"; (3) "any combination of parts

designed and
rnachinegun";
in converting a
intended for use

and
(4)
"any combination of
weapon into a
parts
from which
machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or

under the control of a person."
92l(a)
26
u.s.c.
5845(b); 18 U.S.C.
(23); S.W. Daniel. Inc. y. United States, 831 F.2d 253, 254
(llth Cir. 1987).

Courts analyzing the statute have observed that in addition to
the three ordinary and obvious definitions of rnachinegun contained
in the first sentence of section 584S(b), the statute "creates a
class of objects statutorily defined as a machine gun but which
might not qualify as a machine gun as the term is commonly and
typically understood"; thus, certain parts or combinations of parts
which can enable the automatic operation of weapons are themselves
considered machineguns under the statute.
See, e.g., United States
v.
1359,
Aguilar-Espinosa,
57
F.
Supp.
2d
1363
(M.D.
Fla.
1999) {concluding that a sear, a small piece of machined metal no

larger than one's finger, is a statutory machine gun); F.J. Vollmer
Co., Inc. v. Higgins, 23 F.3d 448, 450 (D.C. Cir. 1994) {recognizing
that both a modified receiver and a machinegun conversion kit met
the statute's definition of rnachinegun, whether integrated into an
operable weapon or not); United States v. Campbell, 427 F.2d 892,
893
(5th Cir. 1970) (holding that conversion kits,
assembled on
Page 13
1057
RIF
trigger housings,
Filed 08/20/10 Page 14 of 23
designed and intended for use in converting a
standard M-1 carbine into a machinegun, constituted a "machinegunn

under
5845 {b)) .
A device or item is considered to be a machinegun
if it meets any element of the etatutory definition.

Espinosa,
57 F.
Supp.
2d at 1362-63
(concluding that
Aguilar"Congress
obviously intended to regulate possession of even an incipient

machine gun,
i.e.,
device the possession of which is either
tantamount to possessing a machine gun or the distinctive precursor

of the automatic operation of a weapon."}.
Longstanding ATF rulings
"designed"
includes
functioned
as
"those
machineguns
provide
weapons
but
that
which
possess
the
have
design
statute's
not
term
previously
features
which
facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination

of existing component parts."
See ATF Rulings 82-2, 82-8, 83-5;
S . W. Daniel. Inc., 831 F . 2d at 254-55 (same); United States v . M-K

Specialties Model M-14 Machinegun Serial Number 1447797, 424 F.
Supp . 2d 862, 866 (N.D . W. Va. 2006) (granting summary judgment in
favor of government in forfeiture action where modified receiver had
the
features
necessary to
facilitate automatic
fire by simple.
modification, and therefore was "designed" to shoot automatically) .

None of the cited cases or ATF rulings require possession of all the
parts necessary to construct a completed machinegun .
In the present case, the ATF initially found that the defendant
contains the frame or receiver of a machinegun and is a weapon that
Page 14
1058
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 57- Filed 08/20/1 O Page 15 of 23
shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading,

FEO Kingery testified that the
difference between a semiautomatic PK receiver and a machinegun PK

receiver is that the semiautomatic receiver has a machinegun bolt
blocking bar attached on its lower shelf and a widened left bolt
guide rail.
The purpose of those two design features is to prevent
the installation and functioning of a PK machinegun bolt carrier and

bolt,
which facilitate automatic
fire.
It
is undisputed that
claimant fabricated the defendant, in part, by removing the lower

shelf and machinegun bolt blocking bar on a semiautomatic WiseLite
Arms/Vltor PKl-'1-type receiver, and by widening the left guide slot
on a
PKM machinegun bolt
carrier.
As
the ATF
saw it,
these
modifications removed or altered the only physical design features

preventing automatic firing and differentiating a semiautomatic PK
receiver from a machinegun receiver.
According to the Bureau,
modified receiver that enables automatic firing is considered a

statutory machinegun.
~Vollmer,
23 F.3d at 449 (denying transfer
application for rifle with modified receiver and installed machine

gun conversion kit).
defendant's
required
to
Because the ATP' s examination determined that
receiver
no
longer
contained
prevent
the
installation
of
the
design
machinegun
features
parts
and
automatic fire, the ATF concluded that the defendant contained the
frame or receiver of a
machinegun,
and thus met the
receiver" prong of the statutory definition of machinegun..
"frame or
Evidence
Page 15
1059
RIF
Filed 08/20/10 Page 16 of 23
provided during .discovery subsequently led the ATF to conclude that

the defendant meets two additional prongs of section 5845 (b),
namely, that the defendant is "designed" to shoot automatically, and
can be "readily restored" to shoot automatically more than one shot,
Claimant now argues that because the defendant, by itself,
cannot shoot, the defendant is neither a firearm nor a weapon, and
therefore, the device need not be registered at all, much less as
a machinegun (despite the fact that claimant's president testified
in his deposition that defendant is a firearm and also swore, under
penalty of perjury,
on the ATF Form 2 that he filed that the
defendant is a short-barreled rifle type firearm required to be

registered under the NFA) .
Claimant further contends that the ATF' s
classification of defendant as a machinegun was arbitrary and

capricious in light of several prior classifications of other MAC
conversion devices as non-firearms.
Claimant additionally argues
that even if defendant is a weapon, it was not "designed" to shoot

automatically,
nor
can
it
be
"readily
restored"
to
shoot
automatically because defendant on its own does not shoot and "never
has been fired."
As discussed above, the government bears the burden to prove
(1) that the defendant property qualifies as a machinegun under the
NFA; and (2) that the property was possessed by claimant and was not
effectively registered in the NFRTR.
To satisfy the first element,
Page 16
1060
RIF
the government must prove that the defendant is classified as a

machinegun under the standards set forth in the NFA and that such
classification was the product of reasonable analysis and was not
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
After careful review of the record, the parties' arguments and
submissions, and the pertinent statutes and regulations, the court
finds
that
the
government
has
met
its
burden.
The
ATF's
classification of the defendant as a machinegun, upon which the

probable cause for seizure was based, has not been shown to be
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
The government
has presented evidence that the property was properly classified as

a machinegun under the NFA, including the testimony of FTB Chief
John Spencer, Assistant Chief Richard Vasquez, and FEO Kingery, who
drafted the initial classification letter based on his examination
and testing of the property.
The classification letter issued by
the ATF reasonably explained the evaluation process, the applicable

law,
and the bases for the Bureau's conclusions and ultimate
classification.
The eight-page letter also included photographs of
the inspection, evaluation and testing undertaken by FEO Kingery.

Although claimant objects to the classification, it does not dispute
the
ATF's
finding
that
defendant
can
be
converted
to
fire
automatically in a matter of minutes with the addition of a few

readily available parts, or that the defendant utilizes open bolt
Page 17
1061
RIF
c.;ase 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 57
Filed 08/20/10 Page 18 of 23
firing and a fixed firing pin (design features that the ATF, since
1982, has ruled are design characteristics of machineguns).
Claimant instead argues that the ATF's decision was arbitrary
and capricious because it has not classified a number of other
caliber conversion devices as machineguns.
However,
there are
statements in the record outlining important distinctions between

those devices and the defendant .
For example, none of the other
devices included a frame or receiver that had been modified to

remove or alter features designed to prevent full automatic firing.
In any event, even if the other devices were similar in some or all
relevant respects to the defendant, the Eleventh Circuit has held
that the ATP has the power to "reconsider and rectify" earlier
classifications.
Akins, 312 F. App'x at 200 (concluding that ATF's
decision to reconsider earlier classification was not arbitrary and

capricious); see also Gun South. Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858, 862
(11th Cir. 1989) (concluding that an agency has the power to correct
earlier errors) .
The claimant has set forth no set of facts showing
that the ATF's classification of the defendant as a machinegun was

Claimant's "never been fired" argument also fails.
During
discovery, claimant provided three video clips of the defendant (or

an early version of the defendant) installed on a MAC-10 machinegun
being fired automatically prior to its submission to the ATP.
Claimant's president also testified that before submitting the
Page 18
1062
RIF
L;ase 1 :u~-cv-uu1 ~Z-<.:H~ I
uocument bl
1-iled 08/20/1 o Page 19 of 23
defendant to the ATF, he tested the defendant by firing "several

cases of ammunition ... [a] case being a thousand rounds," including
multiple "200-round bursts or 250-round complete nonstop Mag or belt
dumps."
ATF Ruling 83-5 provides that a firearm can be "readily
restored" to shoot automatically if the firearm previously could

shoot automatically, but cannot shoot automatically in its present
condition.
A firearm satisfies the "readily restorable" test for
qualification as a machinegun if it can be made capable of automatic

operation through some form of restoration, including restoration
requiring a degree of skill and the use of tools and parts.
Aguilar-Espinosa, 57 F. Supp. 2d at 1362.
Here, FEO Kingery was able to convert the defendant to fire
automatically in less than two minutes, using readily available
materials and no special tools.
Claimant does not dispute that
defendant can be converted into a machinegun with a collection of

parts, but simply argues, without legal support, that "restored" and
"converted" are not synonymous.
Claimant's argument, however, is
contrary to the weight of persuasive authority .
See, e.g., United
States v. One TRW, Model Ml4, 7.62 Caliber
441 F.3d 416, 424
Rifl~,
(6th Cir. 2006) (" [T]he definition of 'restore' does not preclude an
object from being considered 'restored' without returning it to a
condition in which it previously existed."); id. at 421-22 n.8 ("We
have also held that a
firearm that can be converted to shoot
automatically within two minutes 'can be readily restored.'
United
Page 19
1063
RIF
L.ase 1 :u~-cv-uu1 ~L-l:jt: 1 uocument o t
States
v.
Woodlan,
527
F. 2d
t-nea
608,
uts1~u11 u
609
1-'age ~u ot ~:3
(6th
Cir.
[1976]) "} ;
Thompson/Center Arms Co. v. United States, 924 F.2d 1041, 1044 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) ("We can find no principled difference between 'restored',
as interpreted by the government,
and 'converted' ,
as commonly
understood"); M-K Specialties, 424 F. Supp. 2d at 866 (concluding

that defendant was a machinegun as it could be restored to shoot
automatically in so minutes with the addition of parts purchased off
the internet) .
Even if the defendant had never previously been fired, the ATF
did not abuse its discretion in classifying the defendant as a
machinegun.
functioned
Under the NFA,

as
machineguns,
weapons which have not previous! y

but
possess
design
features
which
facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification, meet the

statutory definition of machinegun.
s.w.
Daniel. Inc., 831 F.2d at
254 (upholding the use of a jury instruction defining a machinegun

as "those weapons which have not previously functioned as machine
guns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic
fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component
parts"); York, 774 F.2d at 419 (upholding ATF's classification of
YAC
Sten
MKII
as
machinegun
because
it
possessed
design
characteristics of a World War II submachinegun); !,Jnited States v.

One Harrington and Richardson Rifle. Model M-14, 7. 62 Caliber Serial
Number 85279, 378 F.3d 533, 534 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming district
court holding that a rifle had features necessary to facilitate
Page20
1064
RIF
v1::1se 1:ut1-cv-uu 1t1L-\.:Jt:.1
uocumem 01
r-11ea Ul/Lunu
~age
L"I or L;:J
automatic fire by simple modification and, therefore, it satisfied

both the ''designed to shoot" and the "readily restorable" criteria
necessary to classify it as a machinegun under the NFA) .
Here, the ATF determined that the defendant incorporated design
features of a machinegun, including a modified PKM-type receiver,
a machinegun belt feed ammunition mechanism, a shortened PKM-type
machinegun barrel, open bolt firing and utilization of a fixed

firing pin.
FEO Kingery's evaluation and testimony establish that
the defendant had the features necessary to facilitate automatic
fire by a simple modification, thus meeting the statutory definition

of machinegun under 26 U.S.C.
Finally,
584S(b).
claimant contends that because it registered the
defendant as a short-barreled rifle in the NFRTR,
and has not
possessed the defendant since it was classified as a machinegun, no

statute
response,
require,
has
been violated
that
would
justify forfeiture.
In
the government argues that pertinent ATF regulations

at a minimum,
that to be effective, the Form 2 notice
description must be "accurate.''
See 27 C.F.R.
479.103.
Once the
ATF classified the defendant as a machinegun, the Bureau notified
claimant that its original Form 2 notice was not effective and that
claimant needed to amend the notice.
Claimant's president declined
to do so, stating that he could not swear, under penalty of perjury,

that the defendant is a machinegun because he does not believe that
it is.
Ironically,
claimant's president now concurs with the
Page 21
1065
RIF
vC:I::>~
1.u~-cv-uu 1~~-uc.1
uocumem o /
r-11ea uou.u11 u
I"" age L.L.
or L...1
government that the defendant is not a short-barreled rifle, as the

original registration reflects.
Accordingly, the court finds that
the ATF was well within its discretion in concluding that claimant's
original Form 2 notice was insufficient to properly register the
defendant.
See Akins v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 619, 623 (Fed.
Cl. 2008) (holding that ATF was acting pursuant to the police power
conferred on it by Congress when it reclassified device as a
"machinegun" and ordered inventor to register or surrender the
device) .
The government asserts that once defendant was classified .as
a machinegun, claimant's requests for reconsideration were denied,
and claimant refused to amend its Form 2 registration notice, the
unregistered machinegun could not be transferred or returned to
claimant, as it is unlawful for any person to receive or possess a
firearm made or transferred in violation of the NFA, or to receive
or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the NFRTR.
26 U.S.C.
5861, 5872; see
also~
5812(a) (banning transfer of
firearms "if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm

would place the transferee in violation of law").
Claimant again
objects and seeks the return of defendant, but has provided no legal
authority that would authorize the possession, transfer or return
of an unregistered machinegun.
For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that the
government has established probable cause that claimant manufactured
Page22
1066
RIF
VCl>)C 1.vv-vv-uv lvL-\.:JL-1
UUIJUlllClll i.J/
rm::u UO/UI IU
rcsy~ ,;) UI ,;)
and possessed a machinegun that was not effectively registered in

the NFRTR , and claimant has not carried its burden of showing that
the property was not related to the violation of federal law .
claimant has not
cause,
As
rebutted the government's showing of probable
the government is entitled to a
judgment of forfeiture.
Accordingly, the government's motion for summary judgment [docket

no .
43]
is GRANTED ;
and claimant's motion for summary judgment
[docket no . 38] is DENIED.

Summary
1)
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [docket no . 43]

is GRANTED; and
2)
Claimant Historic Arms, LLC' s motion for summary judgment

[docket no. 38] is DENIED.
3)
The court further ORDERS that

favor of plaintiff,
54RCCS
7 . 62x54R
judgment be entered in
and that one Historic Arms Model
Caliber Conversion System Machinegun,
Serial Number Vl, be FORFEITED to the United States of

America for disposition according to law.
so
ORDERED,
this
~~f/t day
of August, 2010.
G. ERNEST TIDWELL, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 23
1067
RIF
(b) (6)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
(b) (6)
Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:01 AM
(b) (6)
RE: summaries of frames/receiver cases
Thanks, (b) (6) I checked with (b) (6) and for now, don't want any pending cases, but I will keep this just in case they
change mind.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:00 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: summaries of frames/receiver cases
United States v. One Historic Arms Model 54 RCCS "7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System"
Machinegun, Serial No. Vl, 1:09-CV-0192 (GANO}. Claimant, a licensed manufacturer,
manufactured and submitted what it described as a short barreled rifle to ATF for
classification. ATF classified the firearm as a machinegun as Claimant had removed or
defeated the two key features required on semiautomatic PK type receiver that prevent the
installation of machinegun parts and facilitate automatic firing. Claimant refused to amend its
NFA registration of the firearm reflecting its classification as a machinegun. Accordingly, ATF
seized the firearm and commenced this action . The case is currently pending as both sides
have filed motions for summary judgment.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10: 19 AM
To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: FW: summaries of frames/receiver cases
Anybody out there have something on this? Please respond ASAP. thanks.
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:15 PM

To: All ACC Regions; (b) (6)
Cc: Ficaretta, Teresa
Subject: summaries of frames/receiver cases
All At the request of the Deputy Attorney General, I need to put together a compilation of short summaries - criminal,
forfeiture, administrative or otherwise {preferably criminal), of cases ATF brought involving frames or receivers only (or
at least the primary thrust of the case).
Could you please submit to me ASAP any such summaries that you may have?
1068
RIP
(b) (6) d- I know you had the lnterport rec:eiver case.
Thanks!
- (b) (6)
Associate Chief Counsel
(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel
Firearms, Explosives and Arson Division
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Ave., NE, Room 6E-363
Tel: (b) (6)
1069
RIP
1070
RIF
1071
RIF
Submitted bolt
carrier & bolt
Submitted bolt carrier
2 19
1072
RIF
Spring
buffer
2 19
Striker
1073
RIF
903050:(b) (6)
3311/2007-122
(b) (6)
Dear (b) (6)
This refers to your correspondence to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF), Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), received November 20, 2006, in which you inquire
about the lawfulness of manufacturing a new 7.62x25mm caliber upper receiver for SWD Ml 1/9
sub-machineguns. Enclosed with your correspondence is a drawing of this proposed device.
As background, the amended Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(3), defines
the term "firearm" to include any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to
or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive ... [and] ... the
frame or receiver of any such weapon ...
Additionally, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines "machinegun" as
follows:
.. .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 fimction of the trigger.
This tenn shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and
imended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a maclzinegun, and any combination ofparts from which a
machitzegw1 can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person.
For your information, per provisions of the GCA, an unlicensed individual may make a "firearm"
as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution. Individuals
manufacturing a firearm for their own personal use are not required to submit a sample to FTB
for approval. However, if the design of the firearm were questionable, it would be prudent for
such individuals to seek the advice of FTB prior to manufacture.
Also, based on the GCA, manufacturer's marks of identification are not required on firearms that
are produced by individuals for their own personal use. Nevertheless, ATF recommends the
placing of marks of identification on these weapons at the time of manufacture. This procedure
1074
RIP
-2-
(b) (6)
would aid law enforcement authorities in identifying the firearm should it become lost or stolen.
Additionally, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or
otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.
With respect to your enclosed illustration, FfB is unable render a formal determination of your
proposed 7.62x25mm caliber upper receiver based solely upon a drawing or similar depiction. A
prototype sample would have to be submitted to our Branch for examination and classification.
The FfB mailing address is as follows:
Firearms Technology Branch
244 Needy Road
Martinsburg, WV 2540 l
However, FTB has previously examined a device similar to that which you describe in your
correspondence and classified it as a "machinegun" as defined by the NFA. You should be
aware that if the manufacture of this device would result in the assembly of a "machinegun" as
defined by the NFA, FfB could neither solicit nor sanction its unlawful production. Finally, you
should confirm that the manufacture of the proposed device does not violate any State or local
laws and ordnances.
Please note that if the FTB evaluation were to determine that the submitted sample is a
"machinegun" based on 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), we would be unable to return it unless you are a
licensed manufacturer and have paid the special occupational tax (SOT). Conversely, if FTB
determines that the sample is not a "machinegun" per 5485(b), it will be returned to you as soon
as our Branch has received a FedEx (or alternate carrier) account numb.e r to which the return can
be billed.
We thank you for your inquiry and trust that the foregoing has been responsive.
Sincerely yours,
Sterling Nixon
1075
RIP
903050:(b) (6)
3311/2007-226
(b) (6)
Wise Lite Arms
P.O. Box 258
Boyd, Texas 76023
Dear (b) (6)
This refers to your correspondence dated December 27, 2006, to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Branch (FfB), which
accompanied your submitted sample of a semiautomatic version of a Russian PKM machinegun;
this gun was manufactured by your company in Boyd, Texas.
Specifically, you have requested that FfB re-examine and classify this sample, fully identified
below, with a listing of major characteristics:
Wise Lite Arms, Model PKM Semi-auto, 7.62x54R caliber, serial number (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Overall length: approximately 47 inches.

Barrel length: approximately 24 inches.
Wooden buttstock.
As background, the amended Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defines
the term "firearm" to include any weapon (including a starter gun) wlriclr will or is designed to
or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by tire action of an explosive ... [and] ... tlre
frame or receiver of any such weapon ...
Further, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines "machinegun" to
mean.. .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 tenn shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a
maclzinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under tire colltrol of a
person.
1076
RIP
-2-
(b) (6)
This firearm was previously examined by FfB and classified as a "machinegun" as defined in
the NFA. Our Branch subsequently received your ATF Form 2, Notice of Fireanns
Manufactured or Imported, dated August 24, 2006, with regard to this particular firearm.
The current FfB examination noted that a "striker follow" condition still exists; that is, the
striker was not properly held in the cocked position by the sear and was following the rear of the
bolt when the trigger was depressed. This condition was identified during our first evaluation;
see letter #2006-970, dated August 30, 2006. This striker follow condition is easily attainable by
not fully depressing the trigger to the rear.
Consequently. we are returning the submitted sample to you for repairs and/or modifications.
After you have completed these, please return your firearm to FfB, and we will continue our reevaluation.
Finally. as received, the plastic pistol grip on your submitted sample was broken.
Your submission will be returned to you under separate cover.
We thank you for your inquiry, along with the submitted firearm, and trust the foregoing has
been responsive. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have additional questions.
Sincerely yours,
Sterling Nixon
1077
RIP
903050:(b) (6)
3311/2007-322
(b) (6)
Wise Lite Arms
P.O. Box 258
Boyd, Texas 76023
Dear (b) (6)
This refers to your correspondence of January 26, 2007 to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), which accompanied your
submitted sample of a semiautomatic version of a Russian PKM machinegun; this gun was
manufactured by your company in Boyd, Texas.
This firearm was previously examined by FTB and classified as a "machinegun" as defined in
the National Firearms Act (NFA) (please refer to letter #3311/2006-970). Our Branch
subsequently received your ATF Form 2, Notice of Fireanns Manufactured or Imported, dated
August 24, 2006, with regard to this particular firearm.
Specifically. you have requested an FTB re-examination and re-classification of this sample.
fully identified below, with a listing of major characteristics (see enclosures for photos):
Wise Lite Arms, Model PKM Semi-Auto, 7.62x54R caliber, serial number (b) (6)
(b) (6)
Overall length: approximately 47 inches.

Barrel length: approximately 24 inches.
Wooden buttstock.
Markings, receiver left side
WISE LITE ARMS BOYD TX

PKM SEMI-AUTO
CAL. 7.62x54r
SN. (b) (6)
1078
RIP
-2-
(b) (6)
As background, the amended Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defines
the term ..firearm" to include any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to
or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by tire action of an explosive ... [and] ... tlre
frame or receiver of any such weapon.
Further, the NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines "machinegun" to mean any weapon wlrich
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 tenn shall also include
the frame or receiver of any suclr weapon, any part designed and illfended solely and exclusively,
or combination of parts designed and imended, for use in converting a weapon imo a
machi11egun, and any combination of parts from wlziclz a maclrinegun can be assembled if such
parts are in the possession or under tlze control of a person.
Additionally, please note that 27 CFR 478.92 states the following:
.. . each licensed manufacturer or licensed importer of any fireann manufactured or imported
shall legibly identify each suchfireann by engraving, casting, stamping (impressing), or
othenvise co11spicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast, stamped (impressed) or placed
on the frame or receiver thereof in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered,
or removed, an individual serial number not duplicating any serial number placed by the
manufacturer or importer on any other firearm, and by engraving, casting, stamping
(impressing), or othenvise conspicuously placing or causing to be engraved, cast, stamped
(impressed), or placed on tire frame or receiver, or barrel thereof in a manner not susceptible of
being readily obliterated, altered or removed, tlze model, if such designation has been made; the
caliber or gauge; the name (or recognized abbreviation of same) of the manufacturer and also,
when applicable, of the importer; in the case of a domestically made firearm, tire city and State
(or recognized abbreviation thereof) wherein the licensed manufactllrer maintains its place of
business; and in the case of an imported firearm, the name of the country in which manufacfllred
and the city and State (or recognized abbreviation thereof) of the importer.
Furthermore, for firearms manufactured or imported on and after January 30, 2002, the
engraving, casting, or stamping (impressing) of the serial number must be to a minimum depth of
.003 inch and a minimum height of 1116 inch. All other markings must be of a minimum depth
of .003 inch.
The FTB examination revealed that the submitted firearm, which fires from the closed-bolt
position, has been assembled incorporating the features detailed below.
1079
RIP
-3(b) (6)
1. A newly manufactured, one-piece, stamped sheet-metal receiver witb the following

characteristics:
The top, left bolt guide rail is approximately .065 inch thicker than the top, left bolt guide
rail on a PKM machinegun receiver. This additional thickness of the bolt guide rail
prevents the utilization of an unmodified machinegun bolt.
A hardened steel insert, approximately 3/4 inch wide, 1/8 inch high, and 114 inch deep
has been welded into the bottom of the receiver cavity. This hardened steel insert
prevents utilization of an unmodified machine gun bolt.
A return spring extension tube has been welded to the rear of the receiver. This tube
extends into the rear of the wooden butt stock.
2. An original trigger assembly modified in the following manner:
Installation of a newly created sear and sear spring.

A sear keeper pin has been welded in place through the left side of the trigger housing.
Installation of a newly created disconnector.
Installation of a newly created trigger and trigger spring.
3. A striker firing system, consisting of the following:
A newly created firing pin striker.

A newly created return spring assembly.
A newly created return spring guide.
4. The original bolt and bolt carrier modified as follows:
A newly created firing pin and firing pin spring have been installed in the bolt.
A metal block has been welded into the bolt firing pin channel, thereby preventing the
installation of a machinegun firing pin.
The sear engagement surface has been removed from the bottom of the bolt carrier.
Metal has been removed from the bottom of the bolt carrier to allow passage over the
hardened steel insert welded into the bottom of the receiver cavity.
Metal has been removed from the top left area of the bolt carrier to allow passage over
the thicker, left-side bolt guide rail in the receiver.
A disconnector reset has been added to the right, rear comer of the bolt carrier.
Installation of a newly created return spring buffer in the bottom, rear of the bolt carrier.
1080
RIP
-4-
(b) (6)
The FfB examination confirmed that fire-control components in an original machinegun

arrangement cannot be installed in your submitted sample receiver. Additionally, the receiver, in
its present configuration, cannot be readily restored to a machinegun configuration.
Furthermore, the "striker follow" condition identified during the previous FfB examination of
this firearm has been eliminated.
Therefore, your semiautomatic PKM-type firearm, in the configuration submitted, is not a
"firearm" as defined in the NFA. It is a "firearm" as defined in the GCA, 92l(a)(3).
As you may be aware, the GCA, 18 U.S.C. 922(r), prohibits assembly of certain semiautomatic
rifles and shotguns from imported parts. The implementing regulations in 27 CFR 478.39
include the stipulation that no person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using
more than l 0 of certain imported parts, if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation
under 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting
purooses. The parts listed in 478.39 are tabulated as follows:
(I) Frames, receivers, receiver
castings, forgings, or castings.

(2) Barrels.
(3) Barrel extensions.
(4) Mounting blocks (trunnions).
(5) Muzzle attachments.
(6) Bolts.
(7) Bolt carriers.
(8) Operating rods.
(9) Gas pistons.
( l 0) Trigger housings.
( 11) Triggers.
(12) Hammers.
(13) Sears.
( 14) Disconnectors.
(15) Buttstocks.
(16) Pistol grips.
( 17) Forearms, handguards.
( 18) Magazine bodies.
( 19) Followers.
(20) Floor plates.
Because certain semiautomatic rifles are prohibited from importation, the assembly of such rifles
using more than 10 of the above imported parts is prohibited under 922(r). However, assembly
of certain semiautomatic rifles using 10 or fewer of these imported parts is not prohibited under
this section.
Examination by FfB revealed that this rifle has been assembled with the following U.S.-made
parts:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Receiver.
Trigger.
Striker (hammer).
Sear
Disconnecter.
Pistol grip.
1081
RIP
-5-
(b) (6)
In addition. our examination disclosed that this rifle has been assembled with the following
eight imported parts:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Barrel.
Mounting block (trunnion).
Muzzle attachment.
Bolt.
Bolt carrier.
Gas piston.
Trigger housing.
Buttstock.
Accordingly. FfB finds that in its current configuration, this semiautomatic PKM-type firearm,
7.62x54R caliber. is made with no more than I 0 of the above-listed imported parts; its
manufacture. therefore. would not be in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(r).
You should be aware that these findings are based on the sample as submitted. If the design,
dimensions, configuration, method of operation. or materials used were changed, our
classification and determinations pertaining to this firearm would be subject to review.
Your submission will be returned to you under separate cover.
We thank you for your inquiry, along with the submitted firearm, and trust the foregoing has
been responsive. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have additional questions.
Sincerely yours,
Sterling Nixon
Chief. Firearms Technology Branch
Enclosures
1082
RIP
(b) (6)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
(b) (6)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:59 PM
(USAPAW)
(b) (6)
Readily Restorable Argument
Machinegun Argument from US v One Historic Arms Machingun.wpd
Here is the pertinent argument section from our brief filed last month. It should give you a good idea of readily
re storable.
I still think that Whalen, Angular Espinosa, and SW Daniel (all cited in the argument) will get you there!
Feel free to call me if you need something tonight!
Attorney
(b) (6)
2600 Century Parkway NE
w) (b) (6)
c) (b) (6)
f) (b) (6)
1083
RIP
Page 1 of 3
TEST AND EXAM OF HISTORIC ARMS LLC

7.62x54R CALIBER CONVERSION SYSTEM (HA54RCCS)
SERIAL NUMBER (b) (6)
JUNE 1O, 2009
COWETA COUNTY TRAINING RANGE
BACKGROUND
The Historic Arms LLC 7 .62x54R Caliber Conversion System [HA54RCCS] is a device
that was designed to convert a MAC-10 firearm to fire 7.62x54R ammunition. The device
has no other function and will not function as designed unless the lower frame or receiver
from a MAC-10, which contains the MAC-lO's fire control group, is properly attached to
the HA54RCCS.
The HA54RCCS can be made to effect uncontrollable firing (Sputter Gun) if the
HA54RCCS is modified by adding additional components. It should be noted that any
unregistered parts added to the HA54RCCS that would cause it to fire automatically
should be classified as unregistered conversion devices Ct) because they convert the
HA54RCCS from a non-firearm into an unregistered machinegun.
ATFTEST
Prior to arriving at the Coweta County Training Range to conduct a firing test of the
HR54RCCS, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF),
Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) had constructed an unregistered machinegun
conversion device designed to convert the HR54RCCS from a non-firearm into an
unregistered machinegun. This unregistered conversion device consisted of a length of
chain, a turnbuckle, and a bent piece of aluminum as shown in Photo 1:
PHOTO 1
1084
RIP
Page 2 of 3
This unregistered conversion device was attached by FTB personnel to the HR54RCCS
as shown in Photo 2:
PHOT02
By attaching this unregistered machinegun conversion device to the HA54RCCS, FTB
personnel had constructed an unregistered machinegun that used the HA54RCCS in its
construction.
After constructing this unregistered machinegun FTB personnel then placed the weapon
on two (2) sandbags and proceeded to load the unregistered machinegun with a belt
containing five (5) rounds of7.62x54R ammunition.
At this point FTB Fireanns Examining Officer (b) (6)
placed one hand on
top of the unregistered machinegun and pulled back and released the unregistered
machinegun's charging handle with his other hand. The unregistered machinegun fired all
five (5) rounds of 7.62x54R ammunition in an uncontrolled fashion.
ATF TEST FINDINGS
A non-fireann can be converted into an unregistered machine gun using simple
components.
1085
RIP
Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
Based on my observation of the ATF's test of the HA54RCCS I find the following:
1) ATF personnel have the ability and knowledge to construct (make) <2> an
unregistered machinegun from a non-firearm using simple components.
2) Once activated, the unregistered machinegun constructed by A TF personnel using
the HA54RCCS as a component would fire until ammunition exhaustion.
3) The HA54RCCS in its original configuration is a non-firearm and is incapable of
discharging a cartridge.
(b) (6)
Cell: (b) (6)
Reference:
(1) 26 U.S.C., 5845 (b) Machinegun

The term "machinegun" means 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, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of
parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any
combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the
possession or under the control of a person.
(2) 26 U.S.C., 5845 (i) Make
The term "make", and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing
(other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter), putting
together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.
1086
RIP
LEN SAVAGE, PRESIDENT
tti,;torie T1rm1 b.b.C'.

~1
~.:.
706-675-0287 Home
70~675-0818 Shop
CASE NO.
1:09-CV~Ol92-GET
TEST AND EXAM OF JUNE l0, 2009

OBSERVATIONS:
Fireanns Examining Office (b) (6)

installed ATFs "collection of parts11 on the
Historical Arms 54R Caliber Conversion System [HA54RCCS). These parts consisted of chain,
aluminum plate and turnbuckle or tension boll After installation, he loaded HA54RCCSt and
fired five rounds of ammunition after releasing the cocking handle. He did not attempt to fire
HA54RCCS without the ATF collection of parts.
ATF damaged HA54RCCS in previous testing by breaking the shell deflector (which allows the
system, when correctly assembled using a standard MAC machine gun receiver to be safely
shoulder fired). This damage appears to have been caused by the earlier methods attempted by
FEO (b) (6) whose photographs show that the tension bolt was previously attached to the sheJl
deflector. ATF did not supply documentation explaining how the damage to the shell deflector
occurred.
ATF aJso presented the sample MAC type upper used in their analysis as well as the MAC
''receiver" with fire control components removed that ATF used in its April l 5, 2009, test video.
The MAC receiver" was a machinegun made by Military Armament Corp.
The signi1icance that the "receiver' ATF used is a machinegun receiver is the fact that ATF
installed the HA54RCCS into a machinegun, and that the macbinegun receiver functioned as a
machinegun. Did the A1F expect a different result? What other result is possible? When asked
what ATFs presented "sample MAC 10 upper" would do when installed in the same machinegun
receiver, ATF refused to answer, and requested the question be submitted in writing.
I attempted to test fire the HA54RCCS withoutATF's "collection of parts". I placed a loaded
belt in HA54RCCS with three ro1Dlds of Wllfllunition, and attempted to fire it. HA54RCCS did
not feed a single rowid, or fire a single round, of ammunition.
I also test fued HA54RCCS as designed; thatis, to be installed into an existing MAC
machinegun whose receiver had not been modified. After checking the completed assembly and
1087
RIP
test faring three rounds to set wid adjust the gas regulator, I fired eight rounds in two-round bursts
from the shoulder, erect without the aid of any bench. HA54RCCS functioned as designed; that
is, it functioned as a caliber conversion system to allow the MAC machinegun to safely fire 7.62
x 54R ammunition.
At the conclusion of the test and examinations at the Coweta County Sheriffs Training Range,
the government lent the defense its "collection of parts" so that defense could use these parts in
further tests.
TEST AND EXAM OF JUNE l 0, 2009

HISTORIC ARMS LLC TEST RANGE
OBSERVATIONS:
Defense experts provided a "sample MAC 10 type upper". The "sample MAC 10 type upper" is
an example of a MAC 10 upper that is designed to be used with a MAC 10 machincgun.
Defense experts installed ATF's "collection of parts." After some experimentation, the completed
assembly was then loaded with a 45 ACP round and fired in the manner identical to how ATF
tested HA54RCCS. The result of this test was that the sample MAC 10 type upper fired. i.e.,
expelled an projectile by means of an explosive.
Defense experts also duplicated the ATF test shown in the video taken on April 15, 2009.
Defense experts installed the sample MAC 10 type upper into a semiautomatic MAC receiver
stripped offi.re control componenlS [to replicate ATF's April 15, 2009 test], and test fired the
assembled firearm. The result was that the sample MAC l 0 type upper, instalJed on any type
MAC receiver stripped of fire control components, fired more than one shot in the same exact
manner as HA54RCCS.
Defense experts also installed ATF's collection of parts on a Flemming .22 Caliber MAC type
upper. The Flemming "upper" is marketed as a caliber conversion system for MAC type
machineguns since 1993. The result oftest firing the FJemming "upper" after installing ATF's
collection of parts was identical to the result oftest firing HA54RCCS after installing ATF's
collection of parts.
In other words, the results were identical to the Historic Arms 54R Caliber Conversion System in
that the Flemming unit ft.red all rounds supplied ammunition upon release of the cocking handle
with little experimentation.
1088
RIF
CQNCLUSIQNS:
The ATF tests conducted that produced automatic fire were two basic types.
Ooe where a "collection of parts" were applied [i.e. chain, aluminum plate and rumbuckle or
tension bolt] to HA.54RCCS. Testing by the defense revealed that this tests turns all MAC type
uppers into firearms, and on other commercially available "uppers" or "caliber conversion
systems" into a machinegun, although such macbineguns are unsafe and impractical because
once initiated, the fully automatic fire cannot be manually stopped or controlled.
The second test conducted by ATF [April 15, 2009] was to install HA54RCCS into a
machinegun receiver from which the fire control components were removed. ATF stated the
reason was that the receiver contains the recoil system. ATF did not state the obvious; namely,
all MAC type fireanns work in that fashion. Importantly, ATF's presented "sample MAC upper"
fired identically to the HA54RCCS when the same test
applied.
was
ATf failed to recognize that the HA54RCCS was made from portions of a semiautomatic
receiver. The correspondence of June I 0, 2008. identifies and docwnents "machinegun receiver"
as the term ATF used when describing the parts that were used to construct HA54RCCS. Pages
4 and 5 of the June IO, 2008. correspondence documents that the parts Historic Arms LLC used
are from a semiautomatic receiver: "The left side bolt guide rail was widened in a manner to
preventing installation of an unmodified machinegun bolt".
In ATF's mistaken attempt to purportedly ''readily restore" the portions of the semiautomatic
receiver used in the construction of the HA54RCCS, ATF assembled a "collection of parts" that
couJd be assembled into a machinegun. If applied to other MAC type uppers or caliber
conversion systems [that ATF has already declared not to be firearms], ATFs collection of parts
causes MAC type uppers or caliber conversion systems to fire automatically (the same result as
when applied to HA54RCCS).
FEO (b) (6) who examined and tested HA54RCCS, did examination and testing in United
States vs. David Olofson just four months prior to the submission of the HA54RCCS to ATF.
According to page 100 of the trial transcript, his testimony states:
"And ii can be a port solely intmtkd - so/.ely daiptd and intendt!d to con..ert R fueann inJo
a machine gun. or a combination ofoam that are designed to converl a firelll'm Into a
mgchine pn. ifthose Daris art: under- the ,ontroJ or possession ofa person."
Page 120 of the trial transcript:
"A. And those pam together jun bv themselves would be a machine gun.
Q. Okqy.
A. Because thg would be a combjnation ofeam from which a machine gun could~
confcured."
1089
RIP
My chief area of expertise is the history and the development of submachine

guns. My study of this narrowly defined subject has been quite thorough.
During the last fifteen years I have researched, written and had published
more than one-hundred and fifty magazine articles on this subject. My
research for these magazine articles averaged about sixty hours per article, a
total of approximately nine thousand hours.
Len Savage, of Historic Arms LLC, asked me to observe a test that was
conducted on June 9, 2009 at the Coweta County (Georgia) Training range
an employee of
by Firearms Examining Officer (FEO) (b) (6)
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Firearm Technical
Branch (BATF&E FTB). The pwpose of the test was to enable the
BATF&E FTB technician to demonstrate that the Historic Arms
HA54RCCS caliber conversion device for a MAC 10 could be made to fire
when it is not attached to a registered MAC 10 receiver.
My evaluation of the BATF &E FTB test was based upon both my
knowledge of how submachine guns function and of bow developmental
improvements led to better, less expensive and more compact models of
them.
(b) (6)
1090
RIP
Historic Anns LLC designed and manufactured a prototype caliber

conversion device for a MAC 10 submachine gun. The model number
"HA54RCCS" was assigned to this device.
Before submitting the MAClO caliber conversion device to the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns and Explosives Firearms Technical Branch
(BATF&E FIB) for evaluation, Savage asked the FTB for advice. The FfB
suggested that he should designate the MAClO caliber conversion device as
a firearm. That designation was incorrect since the HA54RCCS MACI 0
caliber conversion device could not fire even one shot unless it was first
attached to a registered MAC 10 receiver. In a spirit of cooperation however,
Len Savage agreed to the BATF&E F'IB's request. The prototype device
was then sent to the BATF&E FTB for evaluation.
Though the device, as submitted, was unable to fire a single round, the
BATF&E FTB declared that it was unregistered machine gun. Historic
Arms LLC disputed this assertion and asked to have the test repeated while
experts observed. The BATF&E FfB agreed.
The test was repeated on June 9, 2009 at the Coweta County (Georgia)
Training range. It was conducted by Firearms Examining Officer (FEO)
At the request of Historic Arms LLC, I observed the
(b) (6)
repeated test.
Tue purpose of the test was to allow the BATF&E FTB's technician to
demonstrate that the Historic Arms HA54RCCS caliber conversion device
could be made to fire when it is not attached, to a registered MAClO
receiver. (b) (6)
the FEO, was able to make the HA54RCCS caliber
conversion device fire repeatedly. After observing the test, I concluded that
although the BATF&E FTB technician did make the HA54RCCS caliber
conversion device fire, the test was seriously and obviously flawed. A
review of historical information of the development of submachine guns will
make clear how the BATF&E FTB test was flawed.
The importance of correctly identifying the portion of a fireann that is
designated as its receiver must be emphasized. The fireann's receiver is the
controlled part of the firearm. To buy just the receiver of a firearm from a
federally licensed dealer, it is necessary for the buyer to complete a Federal
Form 4473 and then pass a background check. The parts that are attached
to the receiver, however, are just that, parts. The non-receiver parts are
1091
RIP
unregulated. Anyone can buy non-receiver spare parts without either

completing a Form 4473 or passing a background check. Many firearm
owners buy spare parts in anticipation of wearing out a part or losing one. In
the same manner, by adding new parts, it is both simple and lawful in most
cases to change the caliber of a firearm. Changing calibers makes any
firearm more versatile. One of the more :frequently encountered firearm
caliber changes allows a centerfire fireann to operate while using much less
expensive .22 Long Rifle rimfire ammunition. The use of this less costly
ammunition for practice helps to promote both proficiency and safety.
The combination of parts that constitute a fireann receiver or frame is not
always clear. A starting point is ATF Publication 5300.4, titled Federal
Firearms Reference Guide 2005. The guide defines "Firearm frame or
receiver" as, "That part of a firearm which provides a housing for the
hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually
threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."
Some firearm receivers fit the Federal Firearms Reference Guide definition
very well. One of the best examples of a :fireann receiver that fits the Federal
Firearms Reference Guide definition is a British Lanchester submachine
gun. It contains every Federal Firearms Reference Guide defined part plus
the trigger.
This British Lanchester receiver contains every Federal Firearms Reference

Guide defined part.
Though not mentioned by name in the Federal Firearms Reference Guide's
definition of a receiver, the Lanchester receiver also contains the trigger, the
sear, the disconnector, the fire-control selector, the operating-spring and the
receiver's removable end-cap. The end-cap captures the operating-spring as
it is compressed by the rearward traveling bolt. Containing both an
1092
RIF
operating-spring and a receiver end-cap, a Lanchester machine carbine

receiver is fully functional after it has been removed from its stock.
A Gennan MPI 8 submachine gun is almost as good an example as the
British Lanchester. Except for its simple trigger, which is located within the
stock, the MP18 receiver is functionally identical to the Lanchester's. Like
the Lanchester, an MP18 receiver is fuJly functional after it has been
removed from its stock. To fire, one only needs to press the trigger-transfer
bar.
-.
Ltri~~~~transfer
bar
The German MP 18 was the first practical pistol-caliber machine gun.

Except for the trigger, its receiver contains eve:ry Federal Firearms
Reference Guide defined receiver part. The trigger is located in the lower
frame, which is attached to the stock. The MP18 receiver can be removed
from its stock and fired by pressing forward on the trigger-transfer bar.
Detennining which portion of a fireann constitutes its receiver becomes

more complicated when examining the 1921 Model of the US Thompson
Submachine Gun.
The Thompson's barrel is attached to a rectangular steel block. The interior
of this block is hollow and it contains the bolt and the operating-spring.
Unlike the British Lanchester and the German :MPI 8 though, the Thompson
receiver does not have a removable end-cap to capture the operating-spring.
Instead, the Thompson's receiver is closed at the rear end, thus functioning
as an integral end-cap to capture the operating-spring. Moreover, the
Thompson's trigger, sear, fire-control selector and safety, are not integral
with the receiver. They are contained in a removable lower frame. In spite
of the Thompson receiver,s lack of a trigger and other fire-control parts, the
BATF&E has correctly identified Thompson's upper frame as its receiver.
1093
RIF
5
When examined, this islogical. The reason is clear. A Thompson receiver,
without the addition of any other parts can be made to fire at least one round.
The assertion in the paragraph above can be demonstrated by conducting a
simple, but dangerous, test Remove the Thompson's lower frame, which
contains the trigger, the sear, the safety, the disconnector and the fire-control
selector. While holding the Thompson receiver up side down, grasp the
cocking knob retract the bolt. While holding the bolt retracted, insert a
loaded drum magazine into the receiver. Hold the magazine tightly and
release the bolt. One shot, and maybe more, will be fired.
The receiver of a 1921 Thompson Submachine Gun is depicted at the top of

this illustration. It contains the barrel, the bolt and the operating-spring.
The rear wall of the receiver captures the operating-spring. The lower frame
contains the trigger, the sear, the safety, the disconnector and the frre-control
selector. Without its lower frame attached, the receiver can be made to fire.
An Israeli Uzi submachine gun operates much like a Thompson Submachine
Gun. Like the Thompson's receiver, an Uzi receiver contains the barrel, the
bolt and the operating-spring. Like the Thompson receiver, the Uzi receiver
is closed at the rear end, thus capturing the operating-spring. Also like the
1094
RIF
Thompson, an Uzi's lower frame contains the trigger, the sear, the
disconnector, the safety and the fire-control selector. Finally, like the
Thompson receiver, the Uzi receiver, without its lower frame, can be made
to fire one round. The procedure to demonstrate this is slightly different
though since without using its lower frame a magazine cannot be attached to
an Uzi receiver.
An Uzi receiver contains the barrel, the bolt and the operating-spring. The
Uzi receiver is closed at the rear end. Thus, it captures the operating-spring.
The Uzi's lower frame contains the trigger, the sear, the disconnector, the
safety and the fire-control selector. Even without the lower frame attached,
an Uzi receiver can be made to fire one round.
To conduct this somewhat dangerous Uzi firing demonstration, first remove

the lower frame which contains the trigger, the sear, the disconnector, the
safety and the fire-control selector. If the Uzi that is being tested is later
model that has a ratcheting top cover, remove the top cover. If the Uzi has
the earlier, non-ratcheting, top cover, leave it in place. In either case, pull
the bolt rearward and hold it retracted. Place a cartridge into the chamber
and release the bolt. The Uzi will fire.
By understanding how the firearms in the preceding examples function, it is
not difficult to decide which portion of these firearms constituted their
receivers. The identification of the receivers of many other fireanns,
however, is more difficult due to the improved features of their construction.
1095
RIF
One early submachine gun with an improved receiver was the pre-World
War Two German Erma model EMP (Erma Machine Pistol). Like the
receiver of its predecessor, the German ~18, the Erma E:MP receiver is a
round tube with an attached barrel. The receivers of both the MP 18 and the
E?vfP contain the bolt and the operating-spring. Unlike the l\1P18 though,
the Erma E?vfP receiver incorporates neither a sear to interrupt the travel of
the bolt nor an end-cap to capture the operating-spring. Though it has been
designated as the receiver, the barreled portion of the E?vfP alone cannot be
made to fire because it lacks a means to capture the operating-spring. The
EMP's lower frame contains the trigger, the sear, the disconnector, the :firecontrol selector and an end-cap for the receiver. The benefit of attaching the
end-cap to the lower frame is that the end-cap cannot be lost, thus disabling
the firearm.
The barreled-portion of the Erma EMP is designated as its receiver. The

barreled-portion contains the bolt and the operating-spring but not an endcap to capture the operating-spring. Lacking a means to capture the
operating-spring an EMP receiver alone, cannot fire.
During World War Two, the Enna finn also made the German MP40. The
MP40 receiver, like the Erma EMP receiver that preceded it, contained the
barrel, the bolt and the operating-spring. Like the E:MP, the MP40 lower
frame contained the trigger, the sear and an end-cap for the receiver. Also
like the EMP, without some means to capture the operating-spring an MP40
receiver, the upper frame, cannot be made to fire.
1096
RIF
The German MP40 shares many features of the Erma EMP. Like the EMP,
without some means to capture the operating-spring the :MP40 receiver, the
upper frame, cannot fire.
The post World War Two Walther :MPK shares most of the operational
features of an Erma E:MP and :MP40. The MPK's barrel is attached to its
upper frame and the upper frame contains the bolt and the operating-spring
as well. Like the Erma EMP and MP40, the upper portion of the Walther
MPK frame has no provision for capturing the operating spring. The lower
portion of the Walther MPK frame contains the trigger, the sear, the
disconnector, the safety, the fire-control selector and an end-cap to capture
the operating-spring. Without a means to capture the operating-spring the
Walther MPK upper frame cannot be made to fire.
The upper frame of this Walther MPK contains the barrel, the bolt and the
operating-spring. The lower frame, however, is designated as the receiver.
The :MPK receiver contains the trigger, the sear, the disconnector, the safety,
the fire-control selector and an end-cap to capture the operating-spring.
Without some means to capture the operating-spring, an :MPK upper frame
cannot fire.
1097
RIF
Though the Erma Etvfi>, MP40 and Walther :MPK operate in similar
manners, the upper frames of the former two firearms are identified as their
receivers. The lower frame of the Walther .MPK, however, is identified as
its receiver.
When the contradictions in the paragraph above are examined, it becomes
clear that the MPK's lower frame has been correctly identified as its receiver
but the EMP and MP40 upper frames have been misidentified. This is
because the barreled upper portions of all three of these firearms lack a
means to capture their operating-springs. Without a means to capture their
operating-springs, none of them can fire. Thus, the Walther 1'.1PK lower
frame is correctly identified as its receiver while the upper frames of the
EMP and MPO have been misidentified.
The above conclusion is supported by Canada's Centre ofForensic Sciences.
The Centre of Forensic Sciences is located in Ontario, Canada, and is
operated by the Canadian Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional
Services. This governmental organization classifies an MP40 lower frame
as its receiver for the above stated reasons plus one more. The identification
of the MP40's manufacturer appears on the lower frame but not on the upper
one.
At the top of this illustration is an MP18 receiver. It bas an end-cap to

capture its operating-spring. For this reason, an MP18 receiver can fire
when it is not attached to its lower frame. An Erma EMP receiver is in the
center and a Walther MPK upper frame is at the bottom. Neither of these
incorporate a means to capture their operating-springs. Without a means to
capture their operating-springs, neither an E:MP receiver (the upper frame)
nor an ~K upper frame, can fire.
1098
RIF
10
The Firearms Technical Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives has correctly identified the lower frames of
MAC 10 and Ml 1 submachine guns as their receivers. Like the Walther
MPK upper frame, the MAC I 0 and Ml I upper frames contain only a barrel,
a bolt and an operating-spring. These upper frames do not incorporate a
means to capture their operating-springs. Without some means to capture
their operating-springs, neither a MAC 10 nor M 11 upper frame can fire.
The MACIO and Ml I lower frames (their receivers) contain all of the firecontrol parts and they have a means of capturing the operating-spring that is
located in the upper frame. For this reason, the lower frames of these
firearms have been correctly designated as their receivers.
The lower frames of the MACIO Qeft) and the Ml 1 (right) have been have
been correctly classified by the BATF&E FTB as their receivers. The
receivers contain the trigger, the sear, the d.isconnector the safety, the firecontrol selector and an end-cap to capture the operating-spring. Note that
the operating-springs protrude from the upper frames (see arrows). Without
some means to capture the operating-spring, the upper frames cannot be
made to fire.

Firearms and Explosives has many times affirmed this method of
determining the receiver designation of a firearm. Perhaps the best known
and probably the most produced BATF&E FTB approved non-firearm
MAClO and Ml I upper frame is the Fleming .22 Long Rifle caliber
conversion for them. Fleming .22 Long Rifle caliber conversions are
popular because they allow the owners of MACIOs and Mlls to practice
more quietly with much less costly ammunition. Except for the .22 caliber
barrel and a magazine-well that permits the use of a commonly available
1099
RIF
11
Ruger .22 Long Rifle caliber magazine, a Fleming caliber conversion upper
frame is almost identical to an original MACIO or Ml I upper frame.
At the top of this illustration is a Fleming Ml 1 .22 Long Rifle caliber

conversion upper frame. Below it is a standard Ml 1 9mm caliber upper
frame. Neither upper frame incorporates a method to capture the operatingspring (arrows). Without a means to capture their operating~springs, neither
non-firearm upper frame can be made to fire. The BATF&E FTB
determined in 1993 that both of these upper frames are not firearms.
In 1993, William Fleming submitted a sample of his .22 caliber Ml 1

conversion kit to the BATF&E FIB for an evaluation. After examining the
Fleming kit, the BATF&E FTB issued a letter ruling. The letter, dated May
17, 1993, stated in part:
Based on the above examination, the submitted M11-22

sub caliber conversion kit is classified as not being a
firearm as that term is defined in Title 18 u.s.c.
Chapter 441 or Title 26 u.s.c. Chapt~r 53.
This BATF&E FIB letter ruling re-confirms that if an accessocy upper
frame does not incorporate a means to capture the operating-spring, thus
rendering it incapable of firing, then it is not a firearm. This determination
is both correct and logical.
1100
RIF
12
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

BUREAU Of' ALCOHOL. TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON. P .C. 20ZZ6
LB:P:TE:EMO
3311.4
Kr. William H. Fleaing

Fleminq Pirearas 1 Inc.
7720 East 126 Street North
Collinsville, Oklahaaa 74021
near xr.
Flemihg:
This refers to your letter 01' April 29, 1993, with

which you eW>itted a 8Uh calibar conversion kit
designed to be used with SW!> M11/Nine. sulmachineguns.
~nation
of the su11aitted sample, no serial nWlber,

indicates that it i a lbt aatal upper receiver, .22
rllirire caliber barrel, and .22 rim!ire caliber bolt.
These components are designed to replace the 9. .
caliber upper receiver and bolt assembly on the
1111/Hine Ublaacbinegun. The sub caliber ass8Jlbly,
desi9nated X11-22, i desiqnad to function only in open
bo1t tiring IO.l/Kine aubllachinequns. 'J.'he underside of
the asseably has no cutouts to permit use in a closed
bolt, hBllDler fired K11/9 firearm.
Based on the above examination, the submitted x11-22

Chapter 44, or Title 26 u.s.c. Chapter 53.
Please be advised that this detel"Jllinatlon i based on
the sample as submitted. If the de~iqn, dim@nsions,

used or configuration is changed, this
classification is sub1act to raviaw.
:11at~rial
The submitted sample is b4i!in9 returned under separate

cover.
We trust that the foreqoin9 ha.a been responsive to your
inqiry. If we uy be or any fUrthez assistance.
please contact us.
sincerely yours,
~1/J.~
Chief, :Pl.reanas Technoloqy Branch
This is the entire BATF&E FIB determination letter that states that the
Fleming Ml 1 .22 caliber conversion upper frame is not a firearm.
1101
RIF
13
The Lage Manufacturing Company produces BATF&E FTB approved extralong upper frames for both MAC 1O and Ml I firearms. The extra-long
frames allow the use of heavier bolts and thereby slow the rates of fire. The
extra frame length also increases the sight radius. An increased sight radius
decreases sighting errors.
As with a Fleming non-firearm MAClO and Ml 1 upper frame, a Lage

MAClO and Ml 1 upper frame does not incorporate a means to capture its
operating-spring. Without some means to capture the operating-spring, a
lengthened Lage Ml 1 upper frame cannot be made to fire.
The lengthened Lage Ml 1 upper frame does not incorporate a means to

capture the operating-spring (arrow). Without some means to capture the
operating-spring, the lengthened Lage Ml 1 upper frame cannot be made to
fire. For this reason, the BATF&E FTB has determined that the Lage Ml 1
upper frame is not a fireann.
Before designing the disapproved HA54RCCS MAC 10 caliber conversion

upper frame, Historical Anns designed another non-firearm MACIO upper
frame that was approved by the BATF&E FrB. The MACIO caliber
conversion upper frame that the BATF&E FTB previously approved is
functionally identical to the disapproved HA54RCCS.
The BA1F&E FTB approved MAClO caliber conversion upper frame
allows a MACIO (or Ml 1) to use Calico helical magazines. To accomplish
this, the Historical Arms Calico magazine upper frame was lengthened.
Like the previously described and BATF&E FIB approved non-firearm
upper frames, an Historical Arms Calico MACIO upper frame lacks a means
to capture its operating-spring. Without some means to capture its
1102
RIF
14
operating-spring, an Historical Arms Calico helical magazine MAC 10 upper

:frame cannot be made to fire.
At the top of this illustration is an Historical Anns MACIO upper frame that
permits the use of Calico helical magazines. Below is a standard MAClO
upper frame. Neither upper frame incorporates a method to capture the
operating-spring (arrows). Due to this lack, neither a Calico helical
magazine MAC I 0 upper frame nor a standard MAC 10 upper frame can be
made to fire unless some means is devised to capture the operating-spring.
The Historical Anns Calico helical magazine MAC I 0 upper was given its
initial BA1F&E FTB written approval on June 7, 2005. In a second letter
dated November 3, 2006, the BA'IF&E FTB re-emphasized their previous
approval, stating, "We found that, apart from feeding from a Calico
magazine, the design features of the original Ml O/Ml l had not changed
significantly. Therefore, the FTB classification provided in #2005-440 will
not be re-evaluated."
1103
RIF
IS
903DSO:RDC
3311/200S-440
Mr. Len Savage
President
HiJCOric Arms LLC

1486 ct\en'l' Road
Franklin, GA 30217
Dear Mr. Savage:
This refas to your letter o rMay 25, 2005, IO lhc: Fin::arms Tec.lmoloSY Brandt (FTB), Bureau or
Alcohol. Tob=, Fire:.mlJ and Ellploai~CI (ATf). rcpnilng lhc logalityormodifying an MlO
or Ml t-t)Jlc: uppc:1' n:ccivcr to accept a Calico-type helical magaz:inc.
A5 you are llWlll'e, lhc: Gua Ceatrel Ad or 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 9Jl(aKJJ, dcfioc:s the rcnn
"iirunn" to im:hdc: the l'bllowins:
. (A) OllY weapon (inclwlbtg a Jlalfu gun) ...JtJdi 1t1IU or ls daign,,J ID or llT'2)' M readily
con111Vt"110 tX/HI a projrtailt by rht ac:non of"" apl0Ji11t: (B) heframe or niatiWI" ofany
weap011, (CJ rDIYfir~ mufller or siltn~: <If' (DJ 411)' dutnlaM dm~. Such lum docs
not includt tJJt ontlqutfinarm.
11<'*
Further, ~N1tloHl Flreanu Ad (l'"FA), 16
u.s.c. SIMS(), defines ''flrarin" -
. .Oj o shotgiu. ha~iltg a baTTtl or barrels ofless lluui I 8 lncha in lenrt}r; (1) a Wf!apotr made
from a shotgun tfSfl.Ch wtapon OJ "'odJ}IM luu an ot'a'flll lt!ngfh oflas than 16 lndres or a
lotrrffi or bcrrelsoflcss lhan 18 lncJ:o ill ltngtlt: (J) a rijTt /raring !I ha1TCI 11~ btur~ oflr.1s
lhan 16 indiu ht ltngllr; (4) " wt.apon nsodr fit'm o rifle ifsuch W&llpOn cu modified lrtJJ an
uwuull lrngth of/as t/aan 16 inclics or" ba'"I or barrels ofltJR than 16 lncha in /nsilA; (Si
any othtr weapon. as defi11ed in sulu4ctia11 {t); (6) a madiinqun; (7) any sillnCV (cis defl""' 111
18 U.S.C. f 921): a1lll (8) a dut"4ai"f: de\lic.. 11rt lU711 "firearm s/ioll nol irrclude an antique
fire.arm or On)I DtVft:t: COrlrt:r tJian Cl mac/lfnqwt OT dattttc1h1t: dflllia) w/ttcfi, all/roogh dutinnJ
m a ""~pon. clte..[U.S. AnOl'IM)' GaIJ/) ... finds by reason ofrJi, dau ofib manuj'adMrc,
llC/ue, wign. anJ/ otA" t:haractQi.rrtu i.r primarily a collt:aor'
Cl.JG
i- and ls not likly to be UttJ
l'fl:tlpon.
Basal on the FTB evaluation or tJie submiued dnwing. it appears I.hat the propo~
}SJD.'Ml ll:ype uppc:rreceiva- assembly will be rede1igned to llCOOllUllodate a Calico hdlcat
rnaguine mounl!!d alop the rccclvi:r. In addiliOD, you~ the fircacm 's oricinaJ Si!ITliavlOmatic
fullction will not be al\:en:d.
The uppc:rm:c:iverof1111.Ml~'MU t)l)C fireann does not amstitutethe frame ar receiverofa

firearm, as that lmn 1s defined ill 27 CFR Section 478.1 1 (formeriy 178. l l }. Sued on the
inromullion provided, lhc manu!actin ora inodified Mlllr'Ml l l}'PC irpperrcccivei- lhal ii
redesigned to~ a Calico helical mag~nc docs not c:onstinnc the: manufxtun: of a fimne or
n:ccivc:r or a lln:ann.. The pr0))0$Cd vpper l'l!Ceiver is not subjeei to e11hcr 18 US.C. Olapter 44
(the GCA) orl6 tJ.S.C. CUpcer SJ (the NFA).
This tleu:nni!WH>n is rdcvam IO !be ilCIJI u proposoi Any alter.lions or rnodific:aDom to 1he
design would subject the item to
~review.
the fon:gainii has been ruponsive to your inquiry Please contact us irwc c:an be of any
f11nher ucistance.
We rrust
Sinct:re\y )'OWi,
Sterling Nixon
Cbief, FU-UU Technology B~nch
This is the original BATF&E FTB approval letter for the Historical Arms
MAClO Calico helical magazine upper frame.
1104
RIF
16
U.S. Department of Justice

90305Q;RV
331112007-076
tllV0321Qj
Mr. Len Savage
President
HiSIOric Amis, LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Franklin. Georgia 30217
Dear l\1r. Suvage:
This is in response co :your i11<j11iry to the Firearms fcdmo logy Isranch (FTB). Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF}, regarding whether FTB intends to reclassify
your design or an MI Q. or MI l t')'J'C uppa ~ceiver modified to accept a CalicolYPe helical
magazine.
Our Brdl\Ch isGUcd a classification of this modificalion in our June 7, 200S, letter to you (please
refer to #3311 i200S-440}. We found that. apart from feeding from a Calico magazine, lhc design
features of the original MtOIMl 1 had not changed significantly. Thercfurc, lhe FTB
classification provided in #2005-440 will nol be re-evaluated.
We trust lhc foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be ofany
funhcr KSSistancc.
Sincerely yours,
~u:.'7---./
~ Sterling Nixon
'" 0
Chief, Firearms Tccilnology Branch
This is the second BA1F&E FTB letter regarding the Historical Arms
MAClO Calico helical magazine upper :frame. The letter re-affirms that the
Historical Arms Calico helical magazine MACIO upper frame is not a
fireann receiver.
All of the previously described BA1F&E FfB approved MACIO and Mil
non-firearm upper frames have one thing in common. None incorporate a
means of capturing the operating-spring. Unless these non-firearm upper
frames are used in the way for which they were intended, with a registered
1105
RIF
17
MACl 0 or Ml 1 receiver attached, or some other means is devised to capture

their operating-springs, they cannot be made to fire.
Historic Arms made a second MAC 10 caliber conversion upper frame, the
HA54RCCS. This is the one that the BATF&E FfB disapproved. Perhaps
the BA1F&E FfB was confused by the HA54RCCS because it is larger than
the previously approved non-fireann Calico magazine MAC 10 upper frame.
The HA54RCCS had to be larger because it enables the pistol-caliber
MAC I 0 to fire a larger rifle caliber cartridge.
Like the previously approved MACIO and Mll non-firearm caliber
conversion upper frames, the Historic Anns LLC HA54RCCS MACIO
caliber conversion upper frame does not incorporate a means to capture its
operating-spring. Unless the HA54RCCS upper frame is attached to a
MACJ 0 receiver, or some other means is devised to capture its operatingspring, an Historic Arms HA54RCCS MAC 10 upper frame cannot be made
to fire.
The Historic Arms HA54RCCS MAClO caliber conversion upper frame is

at the top of this illustration. It incorporates no method to capture the
MACl 0 receiver, or some other means is devised to capture its operatingspring, the Historic Arms HA54RCCS upper frame cannot be made to fire.
The ffistoric Arms MAClO caliber conversion upper frame was submitted to
the BA1F&E FTB for evaluation. It was disapproved with the explanation
that the Historic Anns MACI 0 caliber conversion upper frame is an
unregistered machine gun. When asked how that was determined, a
1106
RIF
18
representative of the FTB stated that they had been able to make the Historic
Arms MA.Cl 0 caliber conversion upper frame fire twice.
Len Savage inquired to learn how the FTB had geen able to make the openended MAC I 0 caliber conversion upper frame fire? It was explained that in
order to make the Historic Arms LLC MACIO caliber conversion upper
frame fire, the BATF&E FTB covered the end of the upper frame with an
"L,, shaped metal plate. The new plate was held tightly in place with a chain
and a turnbuckle. These new parts. simple and crude as they are, captured
the operating-spring of the HA54RCCS and allowed it to fire by using the
original cocking handle as a trigger.
Using a chain, an "L" shaped metal plate and a turnbuckle, the BATF&E
FTB created a crude, likely dangerous, receiver that captured the operatingspring and permitted the Historic Arms LLC MACIO caliber conversion
upper frame to fire uncontrollably.
The BATF&E F1B agreed to repeat the HA54RCCS test for Len Savage
and other expert witnesses to observe. Before firing, the FTB technician
placed the unit on a sandbagged table and loaded ammunition into the
feeding tray. The technician held the entire unit firmly against the sandbags
and re1racted the cocking handle, thus compressing the operating-spring
against the new end-cap. Finally, the technician released the cocking
handle. The operating-spring, which was compressed against the new endcap, pushed the bolt forward. With no means to stop the bolt from cycling,
1107
RIF
19
the HA54RCCS MACIO caliber conversion device fired uncontrollably until

the ammunition was exhausted.
Did this test prove that the Historic Arms HA54RCCS MAClO caliber
conversion upper frame is an unregistered machine gun? No. Without the
chain, the metal-plate and the turnbuckle that was installed by the BATF&E
FTB, the HA54RCCS MAClO caliber conversion upper frame could not
have fired. The chain/metal-plate/turnbuckle parts, as simple as they are,
constituted a new unregistered machine gun receiver that was manufactured
by the BATF&E FTB for the sole purpose of causing the Historic Arms
HA54RCCS MACIO caliber conversion to fire.
If the BATF&E F'fB technician had constructed the new receiver in a more
conventional manner, it would be obvious that he had created a new firearm
receiver. The use of the chain, metal-plate and turnbuckle tends to confuse
the issue. To the untrained eye, these simple parts may not appear to be a
firearm receiver but they definitely function as one though when used in the
manner that the BATF&E FTB technician did.
In order to demonstrate that the BATF&E Fm teclmician's chain, metalplate and turnbuckle constitute a new receiver, these parts were borrowed
from the BATF&E FTB. They were then used to tum a standard MACIO
non-firearm upper frame into a firearm. As did the BATF&E FfB
teclmician, the metal-plate was placed over the open end of a MAC I 0 upper
frame and held there tightly by the chain and turnbuckle. While firmly
holding the MAC 10 upper frame against a workbench, the cocking handle
was retracted and a round placed into the chamber. When the cocking
handle was released, the compressed operating-spring pushed the bolt
forward and the BATF designated non-firearm MACl 0 upper frame fired.
The above test was repeated using a BA1F designated non-fireann Fleming
Ml l .22 caliber conversion upper frame. Unlike the previously tested .45
caliber MACIO non-firearm upper frame, the non-firearm Fleming caliber
conversion upper frame has a magazine well. After installing the BATF&E
FTB technician's chain, metal-plate and turnbuckle, a full magazine was
inserted into the non-firearm Fleming caliber conversion's magazine well.
The unit was held tightly against the workbench and the cocking handle was
retracted to compress the operating-spring against the BATF&E FfB
teclmician's
metal-plate. When the cocking handle was released, the
compressed operating-spring pushed the bolt forward. Like the BATF&E
1108
RIF
20
FTB technician's test of the Historic Arms HA54RCCS MAC 10 caliber
conversion upper frame, the non-firearm Fleming .22 caliber upper frame
fired uncontrollably until the entire magazine of ammunition was exhausted.
Using the same test methods and same chain, metal-plate and turnbuckle that
the BATF&E F'fB technician used to make the Historic Arms HA54RCCS
MACIO caliber conversion unit fire, this BATF&E non-firearm designated
MACIO upper frame was made to fire. The chain/metal-plate/turnbuckle
unit constitutes the manufacture of an unregistered receiver
Using the same metal plate, chain and turnbuckle, many other BATF&E
FIB non-firearm designated upper frames and caliber conversion units could
be made to fire. These include, but are not limited to, the Lage MAC 10 and
Ml I upper frames and the Historic Arms MAC IO and Ml 1 Calico magazine
conversion upper frames.
The results of the tests are clear. When combined with an open-ended
BATF&E FIB designated non-firearm upper frame, a chain, a metal-plate
and a turnbuckle become a firearm receiver. Neither a MACl 0 upper frame
1109
RIF
STORIES IN SMALL ARMS REVIEW

1. The TASK Slow Fire Ml 1
Volume 1, number 1
2. BRITAIN'S SALVATION The STEn Machine Carbine Mark II, III & V
Volume 1, number 3
3. The TASK Ml 1 Funneled Magazine Well
Volume 1, number 5
4. Gatling Guns by Furr Arms
Volume 1, number 5
5. Cheap Thrill$: 22Rimfire Machine Guns
Volume 1, number 6
6. The Winningest Subgun: Swedish 'K' L05 l

Volume 1, number 7
7. Magazine Loading Tools
Volume 1, Number 7
8. Vanguard Ml 1
Volume 1, number 10
9. Dual Residency
Volume 1, number 11
10. A Primer of the Generations of Subguns
Volume 2, Number 1
11. M2 Carbine, A Pipsqueak Assault Rifle or A Magnum Subgun
Volume 2, Number 1 (Side Bar to Subgun Generations in same issue)
12. Madsen MSO

Volume 2, Number 2
13. The S'PEn MKIV
Volume 2, number 3
1110
RIF
14. The Alabama Nationals Report

Volume 2, number 5
15. The Little Gun That Could

Volume 2, number 5
16. Small Wonders, ARIS Registered Drop In Auto Sears
Volume 2, Number 8
17. AOW Briefcases
Volume 2, Number I 0
18. UPS Shipping Tips
Volume 3, Number 2
19. The Stemple 76/45
Volume 3, Number 3
20. The Golden Age of Machine Gun Buying
Volume 3, Number 4
21 . The American Class Three Association Nationals
Volume 3, Number 5
22. Planning, Preparation & Practice
Volume 3, Number 6
23. M21 Folding Subgun
Volume 3, Number 7
24. Suomi/M16
Volume 3, Number 9
25. Ml 1 Repair
Volume 3, Number 10
26. Beretta M38
Volume 3, Number 11
1111
RIF
27. Full Auto S&W M659

Volume 3, Number 12
28. Unique Model L
Volume 4, Number 2
29. Easy Magazine Repairs
Volume 4, Number 4
30. BMl's Calico Kit
Volume 4, Number 6
31. Seven Patchett Patents
Volume 4, Number 8
32. Maximizing Subgun Fun
Volume 4, Number 8
33. An Easy Swedish K Repair
Volume 4, Number 9
34. Personal Defense weapons, Tactical and Practical Considerations
35. Thai Madsen Ml946 & MSO
Volume 4, Number 12
36. The Knob Creek Experience
Volume 5, Number 1
37. Maximizing A .45acp Uzi
Volume 5, Number 2
38. The Roots of the Uzi
Volume 5, Number 4
39. 9mm ARIS I Lightning Link Combo
Volume 5, Number 4
1112
RIF
40. NFA Firearms, Wills & Estates

Volume 5, Number 5
41. AK.22
Volume 5, Number 6
42. Gyrojets in Vietnam

Volume 5, Number 7
43. Firearms and the Industrial Revolution

Volume 5, Number 9
44. Breaking the BATF's Form Four Code
Volume 5, Number 9
45. Gyrojet Part 1

Volume 5, Number 10
46. Gyrojet Predecessors

4 7. Sterling QD Scope Mount
Volume 5, Number 10
48. The Transonic Speed of Sound and Its Effects on Accuracy & Noise
Volume 5, Number 11
48. PPS42 and the Clash of the Titans

Volume 5, Number 12
49. M2 Carbine v PPS43

Volume 5, Number 12
50. Norrell FA 10/22 & Norrell Interview combined as one story
Volume 6, Number 1
52. Norrell FA 10/22, Part 2

Volume 6, Number 2
1113
RIF
53. Blish Lock, The Thompson Submachine Gun's Bronze Heart

Volume 6, Number 3
54. Gyrojets Part 2
Volume 6, Number 4
55.Gyrojet Recollections of Tim Bixler
Volume 6, Number 4
56. The American 180
Volume 6, Number 5
57. Norrell 10/22 v. AM180
Volume 6, Number 6
58. Subguns of the Winter War
Volume 6, Number 8
59. Suomi M31 Competition Conversion
Volume 6, Number 8
60. 2002 Indiana Submachine Gun Championship
Volume 6, Number 9
61. Model L Pistol/Rifle Combo
Volume 6, Number 9
62.
Suppressors and Muzzle Thread Adapters

Volume 6, Number 10
63. Hugo Borchardt & the Origins of the Submachine Gun

Volume 7, Number 2
64. The Machine gun Princess
Volume 7, Number 2
65. Full-Auto Lugers
Volume 7, Number 3
1114
RIF
66. MP 18,1 Part One

Volume 7, Number 4
67. MP18,I Part Two
Volume 7, Number 5
68. MP28,II
Volume 7, Number 6
69. ERMAEMP
Volume 7, Number 7
70. Steyr Sl-100
Volume 7, Number 8
71. Bergmann MP34 & MP3 5
Volume 7, Number 9
72. Pederson Device
Volume 7, Number 9
73. ERMA MP38 & MP40
Volume 7, Number 10
74. Die Sclmellfeuerpistol Mauser
Volume 7, Number 11
75. Auto Ordnance West Hurley C Drums, Making Them Work
Volume 7, Number 11
76. Ruger AC556
Volume 7, Number 12
77. Mauser C96 & Schnellfeuer Disassembly
Volume 7, Number 12
78. MP41, The Real Schmeisser
Volume 8, Number 1
1115
RIF
fnem fhe land.BewnUnda

80. Carbine Williams, Part I. The Man, The Myth, The Rifle
Volume 8, Number I
81. German PPSh41, MP717(r)
Volume 8, Number 2
82. TZ-45, Subgun With a Safety First
Volume 8, Number 2
83. MP3008 Volksmaschinepistole
Volume 8, Number 3
83. Carbine Williams Part Two
Volume 8, Number 3
84. Cheap Shots
Volume 8, Number 3
85. Chinese Thompson

Volume 8, Number 4
86. Origins of MI Carbine, Another Perspective
Volume 8, Number 5
88.
Volume 8, Number 5
89. Greasegun, Part One
Volume 8, Number 6
90. Greasegun Part two
Volume 8, Number 7
1116
RIF
91. Indiana Reenactor Subgun Match

Volume 8, Number 7
92. The Forward Firing Aircraft Machine Guns Of the Great War
Volume 8, Number 7
93. Silenced .22LR Daisy BB Gun
Volume 8, Number 8
94. Williams Model 7 Machine Gun
Volume 8, Number 9
95. The Guns of Max Atchisson
Volume 8, Number 9
96. The LEL-1 Light Weight .22 Belt Fed Submachine Gun
Volume 8, Number 10
97. TASK Slow Fire 76/45
Volume 8, Number 10
99. Stamped Sheet Metal Receiver Sten MKII
Volume 8, Number 11
100 ..22LR Machine Gun Buyer' Guide
Volume 8, Number 11
101. New Generations of Subguns
Volume 8, Number 12
102. M 11 Hardened Parts
Volume 8, Number 12
103. Dardick Pistol
Volume 8, Number 12
I 04. Spring 2005 KCR Sub gun Match
Volume 9, Number 2
1117
RIF
105. SO-round Magazine Modification

Volume 9, Number 2
106. Beistigui Hermanos Machine Pistol
Volume 9, Number 3
107. J& R Customs Suppressed Takedown Rifle
Volume 9, Number 4
108. Astra 900 Machine Pistol. Part 1
Volume 9, Number 4
109. Astra 900 Machine Pistol, Part 2
Volume 9, Number 5
110. 2005 Indiana Subgun Championship
Volume 9, Number 5
111. Smith/Suomi Ml 1
Volume 9, Number 5
112. MAS 35 & 38, Children of the Pederson Device
Volume 9, Number 6
113. Czech ZK3 83
Volume 9, Number 6
114. LUSA USA
Volume 9, Number 7
115. Bowling Ball Mortar Championship
Volume 9, Number 8
113. Old magazines and Old Ammo
Volume 9, Number 8
115. Tactical Innovation's 10/22 Magazine
Volume 9, Number 10
1118
RIF
116. Blish Lock Mystery Revealed

Volume 9, Number 10
117. Build Your Own Slow Fire Ml I
Volume 9, Number 10
118. MPS v MP40
Volume 9, Number 11
119. Charlton Full-Auto SMLE Rifle
Volume 9, Number 11
120. Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight, Submachine Guns With Bayonets
Volume 9, Number 11
121. Sidewinder Submachine Gun
Volume 9, Number 11
122. Owen Gun, The Upside-down Subgun from the Land Down Under
Volume 9, Number 12
123. Policarpa 22-2, Double trouble, Double Barrel Machine Gun
Volume 9, Number 12
124. Sten Magazine-Spring Solutions
Volume 10, Number 2
125. Luigi Franchi LF-57
Volume 10, Number 2
126. Calico MAC
Volume 10, Number 2
127. 1911Al Pistol in 7.62x25mm
Volume 10, Number 3
128. Full Auto Reising Model 65
Volume 10, Number 4
1119
RIF
129. Volume 10, Number 5

C& S Krinker Plinker
Maximizing a .22LR suppressed Rifle
2006 Indiana SMG Championship
Closed Bolt Full Auto Uzi Conversion
STG-76 Submachine Gun
Lage Max-11
Useful Accessories for .22LR Thompsons
136. Ingram Models 5 and 6
Volume 10, Number 9
137. Japanese Light Machine Guns
Volume 10, Number 9
138. No Guess Sight Adjustments
Volume 10, Number 11
139. Ingram M6, M7, MS, M9 & M20
140. Stoney Creek Armory Ml 1
141. Unique MP-2 Machine Pistol
1120
RIF
142. 9x23mm Steyr MP34(o)

Volume 11, Number 1
142. lap Type 99 7.62x39mm Conversion
Volume 11, Number 2
143. Subgun Arcade, Spring KCR
Volume 11, Number 2
144. Iwo Jima Captured Type 99 LMG
Volume 11, Number 3
145. Forensic Sciences 22-2
Volume 11, Number 3
146. Making an Ingram M6 Magazine from a Thompson magazine
Volume 11, Number 4
147. Ant Hill Range .22LR Subgun Match
Volume 11, Number 5
148. Heinemann Submachine Gun
Volume 11, Number 6
149. The Orita Submachine Gun
Volume 11, Number 6
150. The STG Thompson MIA
Volume 11, Number 8
151. Father/Daughter team Sweeps Knob Creek SMG Match
Volume 11, Number 8
151. Suppressed . l 7HMR
152. Shotgun Suppressor
1121
RIF
153. Chinese Type 56 LMG

Stories in Machine Gun News
1. TWENTY TUZI
Volume 6, Number 4
2. J.D. FARMER'S AK-22
Volume 7, Number 6
3. BUILDING A COMPETITIVE SUBGUN ON A BUDGET
Volume 7, Number 10
4. OLD NECK BB TOMMYGUN
Volume 8, Number 3
5. TOMMYGUN UPDATE
Volume 8, Number 5
6. THE ULTIMATE Ml 1
Volume 8, Number 9
7. THE FURR ARMS GATLING
Volume 8, Number 11
8. PRESERVATION AND REPAIR OF HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES
Volume 8, Number 11
9. THE KARL GUSTAV M45B
Volume 9, Number 1
10. THE RUGER AC-556
Volume 9, Number 3
11. HOME SECURITY & VAULT CONSTRUCTION (Robert Hoehl)
Volume 9, Number 3
12. SMOOT BOLT LOCKING DEVICE
1122
RIF
Volume 9, Number 3
13. GATLING REPLY
Volume 9, Number 3
14. RUGER/NORRELL/MG-42
Volume 9, Number 4
15. The World's Smallest Machine guns
Volume 9, Number 5
16. THE BETA C MAGAZINE

Volume 9, Number 6
17. THE AMERICAN 180
Volume 9, Number 7
18. BATF MAGAZINE LEITER/STORY
Volume 9, number 8
19. THE OWENSBY SOLUTION
Volume 9, Number 8
20. EASY GUN AND SUPPRESOR CLEANING
Volume 9, Number 11
21. SUPPRESSED .22LR VOERE MACHINE GUN
Volume 10, Number I
22 .. 300 WHISPER or SUBSONIC .308
Volume 10, # 5
23. A Five Speed Ml6
Volume 10, #6
24. Ml6 Vs. MP5
Volume 10, # 7
25. 1997 NFA Nationals
Volume 10, Number 7
1123
RIF
BLANK AS
ORIGINAL
1124
RIF
Analysis of the ATF Testing of Historic Arms LLC

54RCCS Caliber Conversion Unit.
This report is an evaluation of ATF test of Historic Arms LLC 54RCCS
caliber conversion unit that was performed on June 10, 2009 at the Coweta
county sheriff's range. The ATF provided video documentation of a previous test
conducted on April 15, 2009 on the Historic Arms LLC 54RCCS caliber
conversion unit. Subsequent comparative testing of similar units were performed
at Historic Arms LLC shop in Franklin Georgia.
Terms and definitions used in this report:

Machinegun-
Registered ReceiverUpper Receiver-
Lower receiverControlled fire-
Uncontrolled fire-
A firearm that can fire more than one round of

ammunition with a single function of the trigger
or actuating device.
The registered/restricted component of a
firearm as determined by the ATF
The upper portion of a firearm usually
containing the barrel, bolt, bolt carrier and
recoil device.
The lower portion of a firearm usually
containing the fire control parts and handgrip.
The person operating a firearm can start and/or
stop the firearm from firing with a function of
the trigger or actuating device.
The person operating a firearm cannot stop the
firing sequence and the firearm will continue to
fire until all ammunition is exhausted or the
firearm malfunctions.
Testing and Evaluation at Coweta Range:

The ATF tested the Historic Arms 54RCCS caliber conversion unit for the
MAC 10 family of registered machineguns (referred to as "the unit") to determine
under what classification the unit would be assigned. The assigned
classifications are a firearm accessory, a firearm or a machinegun.
ATF demonstrated their test as shown on video. The test included placing
an aluminum plate over the open rear of the unit. The plate was held in place
with a section of chain wrapped around the unit longitudinally (see attached
photo). A tensioning bolt was used to hold the plate and chain in place (see
attached photos 1 through 5). The unit with the plate, chain and tensioning bolt
were held against a set of sandbags when fired. No lower receiver (MAC
machinegun) or fire control parts were included in the test procedure. The unit
was loaded with a belt of 5 rounds of Wolf ammunition. In the absence of a
trigger or fire control parts, the charging handle was retracted and released. The
unit fired all 5 rounds in an uncontrolled fashion.
1125
RIF
After the ATF test fired the unit, a hole, approximately 1 inch in diameter
was noted in one of the sandbags directly under the unit. The nature of the hole
indicated that it was the result of escaping high velocity gasses through an
opening in the bottom of the unit.
Considering the nature of the assembled parts (aluminum plate, chain and
tensioning bolt) with the unit, it appears that in this test form, the unit can only be
fired while held against the sandbags or held with some other anchorage device.
This anchorage device substitutes for a normal handhold position. Without this
additional element (the sandbags), the unit could not have been fired without a
high potential of injury to the person operating the unit from the escaping high
velocity gasses Therefore the sandbags need to be considered a part of the test.
Following the ATF's demonstration of their test, Mr. Savage proceeded to
test fire the unit.
The first test conducted by Mr. Savage was an attempt to fire the unit with
no additional parts or lower receiver attached. A loaded belt of ammunition was
loaded into the unit. Mr. Savage pulled the charging handle rearward and
released it in the same fashion as the ATF's test. Without the ATF's attached
parts, the bolt stayed in the rearward position. The unit did not chamber or fire.
Without the aluminum plate retaining the recoil rod, the unit cannot chamber or
fire. This demonstrated the unit is unable to fire without some degree of
modification or addition of parts.
Mr. Savage then test fired the unit in its intended configuration, with a
registered MAC 10 lower receiver. The unit chambered and fired as intended in a
controlled fashion, or controlled fire.
Following the demonstrated test procedure by the ATF and Len Savage,
the unit was dismantled and compared to a sample PKM machinegun, (provided
by the ATF) and a semi automatic PKM receiver (provided by (b) (6)
Bases on the dimensions of the bolt rails, recesses in the bolt for the larger rails,
bolt dimensions and barrel of the Historic Arms unit, compared to the two sample
firearms, (the Full auto PKM and Semi auto PKM) it was evident the unit was
originally manufactured from a semi automatic firearm receiver (the Semi auto
PKM}. The fully automatic internal parts of the PKM machinegun could not be
substituted into the Historic Arms unit without substantial machining or alteration
to the full automatic internal parts or the Historic Arms unit.
Testing and Evaluation at Historic Arms LLC Shop:

Six individual comparative tests were performed at Historic Arms LLC
shop following the testing and evaluation at the Coweta Range. Several of the
tests utilized the components of the ATF test (aluminum plate, section of chain
and a tensioning bolt).
The standard MAC 10 upper is the control unit for the testing process The
ATF considers the MAC 10 upper machinegun receiver to be a firearm part and
not a firearm or machinegun in and of itself. Under the Test Finding section of
1126
RIP
this report, see a further discussion of the purpose of a control unit and control
testing.
The first test conducted used a MAC 10 upper receiver for a registered
machinegun attached to a semi automatic lower receiver. The fire control parts of
the semi automatic lower were removed for this test. This was to compare a
previous test of the unit (Historic Arms 54RCCS) conducted by the ATF on April
15, 2009. That particular test performed by the ATF involved attaching the unit to
a registered MAC 10 lower machinegun receiver with the fire control parts
removed . A magazine was loaded with 3 rounds of ammunition; the bolt was
pulled to the rearward position and released . The upper fired 2 consecutive
rounds in an uncontrolled fashion. It chambered the third round without firing.
The second test conducted at Historic Arms shop was similar to the first test. The
control MAC 1O upper machinegun receiver was attached to a semi automatic
lower receiver with the fire control parts installed. A magazine was loaded with 3
rounds of ammunition; the bolt was pulled to the reward position and released .
The upper fired 3 consecutive rounds in an uncontrolled fashion.
The third test conducted at Historic arms shop utilized the control MAC 10 upper
machinegun receiver with the parts from the ATF test performed at the Coweta
Range attached in the same fashion. The aluminum plate was placed over the
open rear of the receiver. The section of chain was wrapped around the receiver
to hold the plate in place and the tensioning bolt was tightened to secure the
chain and plate in place. One round of ammunition was loaded into the chamber
and the bolt pulled to the rearward position and released . The upper fired the
single round of ammunition.
It should be noted the first attempt at this test failed to function due to the
bolt locking mechanism being in the locked position.
The fourth test conducted at Historic Arms shop utilized the ATF's parts
from the test conducted at the Coweta Range attached to a Flemming 22 Rim
Fire Caliber Conversion Device. This is a replacement upper receiver that allows
the MAC 10 registered machinegun to fire 22 rim fire ammunition. The feed
device is attached to the upper receiver similar to the Historic Arms unit. Per the
ATF, this is a firearm accessory and not a firearm or machinegun and is widely
available on the commercial market. The aluminum plate was placed over the
to hold the plat in place. The tensioning bolt was tightened to secure the chain
and plate in place. A magazine was loaded with 3 rounds of ammunition; the bolt
was pulled to the rearward position and released. The upper fired 3 consecutive
rounds in an uncontrolled fashion
The fifth test conducted at Historic Arms shop was a duplication of the
fourth test using a magazine loaded with 22 rounds of ammunition. The receiver
fired 1 round and jammed on the first attempt. On the second attempt the upper
discharged 21 consecutive rounds in an uncontrolled fashion.
The sixth test conducted at Historic Arms shop involved the use of the
control MAC 10 upper and an Uzi machine gun upper with no additional parts
added. Neither upper had their respective lower receivers or fire control parts
1127
RIF
attached. The control MAC 10 upper was loaded with a single round of
ammunition. The charging handle was pulled to the rearward position and
released . The bolt did not closed and the upper could not fire.
The same test was performed with the sample Uzi upper. When the
charging handle was pulled rearward and released, the upper fired a single
round.
This final test was conducted to demonstrate the difference between the
MAC 10 upper receiver, which the ATF does not consider to be a firearm or
machinegun and an Uzi upper receiver, which the ATF does consider to be a
firearm or machinegun.
Test Findings
Results of the ATF's test conducted on April 15, 2009 when the ATF
attached the Historic Arms unit to a registered MAC 10 lower receiver, with the
fire control parts removed, was not compared to a control sample. When this test
procedure is compared to a control sample (repeat the test using an unmodified
MAC 10 machinegun upper receiver classified as NOT being a firearm or
machinegun), the Historic Arms unit functions in the same exact fashion as the
control upper.
Per accepted scientific and engineering practices as
published by ASTM (American Society of Testing Materials),
ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers), and per
publications such as Engineering Reference Manual by Lindeburg,
gh edition or numerous other scientific and engineering
publications, a basic necessity of any testing procedure is to
compare to a control test for validation of results. Without control
testing to validate findings, the testing procedures are considered
invalid and the results irrelevant.
This particular test, when compared to the control unit, demonstrates the
Historic Arms unit functions in the same manner as the accepted control unit,
which is classified as NOT being a firearm or machinegun. Considering both
units fired in an uncontrolled fashion, this test appears to have little or no merit in
determining the classification of the Historic Arms unit. In both cases the lower
receiver contains the recoil rod , allowing the upper to cycle and fire. At best this
test demonstrates the functional similarities between the accepted control unit
(MAC 1O machinegun upper) and the Historic Arms unit.
The tests performed by Mr. savage, when no additional parts or lower
receiver were added to the Historic Arms unit or the accepted MAC 1O upper
(control unit), further demonstrates the functional similarities between the
accepted control unit and the Historic Arms unit. Neither unit could chamber,
cycle or fire without the addition of parts.
Evaluating the ATF's test of the Historic Arms unit with the applied parts
(aluminum plate, section of chain, tensioning bolt and sandbags) produced
1128
RIF
similar results as the test utilizing a registered lower receiver with the fire control
parts removed. The control unit discharged a single round. However it is NOT
considered to be a firearm by the ATF. The Historic Arms unit discharged all
available ammunition in an uncontrolled fashion.
The applied function of the added parts for ATF's test show the parts
duplicate the function of the registered receiver with the fire control parts
removed. The aluminum plate duplicated the rear section of a registered receiver
by capturing the recoil in the operating rod. The section of chain secures the
aluminum plate in the same manner the side rails of a registered receiver secure
the rear plate. The tensioning bolt attaches the chain (via tightening against the
forward gas piston) to the unit in the same way the forward trunion (attachment
point between the upper and lower receivers) attaches the registered lower to the
unit. The sandbags create a hold position to substitute for the registered lower
receiver handgrip. In duplicating the function of a registered receiver, the test
was expected to duplicate the results of using a registered receiver with the fire
control parts removed. The test did produce the anticipated results. The function
of the registered receiver was duplicated.
This point is further demonstrated when the exact same testing procedure
was performed on the Fleming Caliber Conversion Device. The Fleming Caliber
Conversion device is NOT considered to be a machinegun or a firearm by the
ATF and can also be considered a control unit (see attached Fleming
Classification Letter). When the test was performed, the Fleming unit fired in an
uncontrolled fashion repeatedly.
Further evaluation of the ATF's test of Historic Arms unit brings into
question the validity of adding common parts to the caliber conversion system.
The primary question being, do the added parts constitute a conversion device to
induce full automatic fire in and of themselves? In recent rulings by the ATF, the
addition of a simple shoe string to a title one firearm (a conventional semi
automatic firearm) constitutes a conversion device to induce full automatic fire
(see attached shoe string classification letters). It would stand to reason that a far
more complicated system of added parts would also be considered a conversion
device as outline in ATF's Policy Clarification Document CC-43,723 FE:JBP (see
attached ATF Policy Clarification Document). Based on preliminary review, this
collection of parts applied in the same or similar fashion would induce full
automatic fire on a number of caliber conversion devices such as the Stoney
Creek Soumi upper, the Anthony Smith Soumi upper, Lage upper. Based on the
generic versatility of the collection of parts, it is most likely adaptable to a large
number of title one firearms. No comparison to title one firearms were conducted
as this was deemed outside the scope of this evaluation.
It is this engineers opinion that if the ATF does not consider this
combination of parts (aluminum plate, section of chain, tensioning bolt and
sandbags) applied in this fashion to be a conversion device, that it is highly
probable numerous individuals will attempt the same conversion on a number of
firearms or caliber conversion devices with the assertion (correct or otherwise)
the act of doing so is not unlawful based on ATF's consideration here.
1129
RIF
Conclusion:
The tests performed by the ATF at the Coweta Range on June 10, 2009,
and the test previously performed by the ATF on April 15, 2009 along with the
tests conducted at Historic Arms shop demonstrate the Historic Arms LLC
54RCCS caliber conversion unit functions in the same manner as the standard
MAC 10 upper (control unit). The tests also demonstrate the Historic Arms Unit
functions in the same manner as other commercially available caliber conversion
units. The collection of part added to the Historic Arms Unit constitutes a
conversion device (as defined in ATF Policy Clarification Letter CC-43,723
FE:JBP and ATF ruling letters on the attachment of shoestring to a firearm)
intended to induce full automatic fire. Based on the comparative results of these
tests, the Historic Arms 54RCCS Caliber Conversion Unit is NOT a firearm or
machinegun in and of itself. The tests as they were performed demonstrates the
Historic Arms unit performs and functions in an identical fashion to ATF's
accepted MAC 10 upper receiver (control unit) as well as other commercially
available caliber conversion units.
(b) (6)
P.E.
Johnson, Mlrmlran & Thompson, Inc.

"An Employee Owned Company"
(b) (6)
Associate
, P.E.; C.B.S.L
220 Charles Way, Suite 200

York, PA 17402
P. (b) (6)
t=. 717-741-9100
M. (b) (6)
mailto(b) (6)
1130
RIP
Photo 1- Right side of Historic Arms unit with added parts
Photo 2- rear of Historic Arms unit with added parts
1131
RIF
Photo 3- Left side of Historic Arms unit with added parts
Photo 4- Historic Arms unit with chain wrapped around the forward grip
1132
RIF
Photo 5- front view of Historic Arms unit with added parts
Photo 6- Full auto bolt on left and Historic Arms bolt on right
1133
RIF

9URAU OF ALCOHOL. TODAC:C:O AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, D . C. 20225
LE:F:TE:EMO
3311.4
MAY 111993
., .
Kr. William ff, .Fleming

Fleming F.irearms, Inc.
Collin~ville, Okl/lhOJUt
74021
...
Dear Mr. Flemihg:

This retar5 to your letter of April 29 , 1993 , with
vhich you submitted a sub caliber conversion kit
desi~ed to be ~sed ~ith SWO Mll/Nine subinac~Jneguns.
...
\. l"l )
B~amination
of the sutn.itted sample, no aerial n~er,

indicates that it is a sheet metal upper receiver, . 22
ri.fire caliber barrel, and .22 ri111fire caliber bolt. ~
These co111ponent11 are designed to replace the 9,. .
:, .
. calieer upper receiver and bolt assel'llbly on the
, ...... ~f..!
ft11/Nine sublllachinegun. The eub caliber assembly,
- ~
~ . ;xilfi.
designated Mll-22, is designed to function only in open
' '~.{~
bolt tirin9 M11/Nine sul:>aachineguns. The underside cf
.
, ~'='",
the asaebly baa no cutouta to permit use 111 a cl?~
:.:_.,,:_~~
bolt, hllJllller fired Hll/9 firearm .
:
.1:'fj/;"''i>t;:lt\o.1:
:>
~' v-r.~'ii~~
Bu1ed on the above exa11ination, the aubaittad..Kll-22 (, ::~~~~.1

sub calieer converaion kit is classified aa nb!: beJ.ng a l !'~ j :t-k~l
firearm as that term is defined in Title '18 lJ. $.C.'
; ...~~';.'11.:.'~~~~oiChaptar 44, or Title.)16 U: s.c, Chaptltr, S~ .
. ,'
't , .;~~~;.t!.:.
,_
.,.
" .......
Plea be advised that this det8llllinat1on is .baaed on
' ~'. ,
~~~
the saaple as 11ubmitted, If the dealgn, dimel'lsions;
ilil 4
aatrial used or configuration is changed, tbis
,
~~
claa11ification is subject to review.
.' :.. ~
.P: }
The aUbllitted aupla is being returned under Hparate

cover.
''.. .........
~ (#. ~.::.~~~
'~ ...~~ ...l w;rr,
. ..;.,,..
,1~-
:\;
. ......
We trust that the fo'regoing has been repoiusive to your ~ ~ "' '=
,,, t i.:~'--:>,,.,~
in~iry.
If we may be ct any further a~iatance ;! .-,.,
t.... i: .,!'i;;:<~~~
plaa11a contact us:
-:,'r ,-t", ~ ~ l
Sincerely your-a,
t:. IJ
11 tin
fl1
Te~hnoloqy
1134
.. . . . , . ..
'..;('
. .,!'I!
~
0_ ,. . . . ...
~{fJ.~ --. ~Chief, Firear
Branch
RIF
'
(OCR convu rsion with cleanup of letter Obtained via FOIA.l
(Redactions are iu the original a:s provided in respons e to the FOIA dem.111d .]
BUREAU
DEPARTJ.IENT OF THE TREASURY

OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20226
(symbols
redact~d]
J UL 23 1996
Nilt'lle Redacted)
Address Redacted]
City, ST Zip Redacted]
Dear [Redacted)
This is in res~nse to your letter of recent date, to
the Bureau of Alcollol , Tobacco and f irearms (ATF) . In
your letter , you request classi ficatiun of a device
which you have designed to viork on your semiautomatic
firearms . You have also submitted a sample of the
device for our examination.
Title 18 united states code (U.s.c.), chapter 44,

922(0), makes it unlawful for any person to possess,
transfer or manufacturer [ sic] a machinegun 'l'1hich was not
register ed in accor dance with the provisions of the
National Fireorms Act (NFA) prior to May 19. 1986.
As defined in Title 26 u. s . c . , chapter 53. 5845(h),
of the NFA, the term "machincgun" means any '11' eapon
which shoots. is designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot automatically more than one shot,
trig~er . The term shall also incluae the frame or
i ntended solely alld exclusively, or combination of
parts designed and intended, for use in converting a
weapon i nto a macl~inegun, and any compbin~tion of parts
from winch a machinegun can be assembled if suc h parts
are in the possession or under control of a pers on.
The submitted sample is a length of shoe string

[approximately 8 lines of text redacted through the
end of this page]
1135
RIF
-2[ND.file Redacted]
[approximately 7 lines of text redacted at the top of

this page]
ATF has previously examined similar devices and
detemille<l that they are auxiliary nigger mechanisms
which are designed and intended for use in c;onvertin9 a
semiautomatic rifle illto a machinegun: therefore, they
are rnachi ne9u11s as defined in 5845(1>). Based upon
our examillatioll of the submitted device and the
information you provided, it is our opinion that the
sarnple device is also an auxiliary trig9er mechanism
and a .,machinegun., as defined in the t:h1rd paragraph of
this letter.
It is unlawful for anyone to make, possess, or transfer

a rnachi negun which is not registered in accordance ..,,, th
the provisions of the NFA. si nee 'J'1e are unable to
establish that the submitted sample Y1as manufactured

and transferred in accordance the provisions of the NFA
and~ 922(0), we are unable to return it to you, as
submitted. llOY.ever, we can return your shoe string
without the loops .
The shoe s tri n.g which you subrni tted (1 ess the 1 oops) is
beit~ r-eturned under separate c:over.
regret that WI? ar e una!Jle to respond more favorably

at the 1>res1mt tirre. If you have further ques tions
concerni tl{) this rr:atter. pl ease contact us.
'Ile
Si nee re 1y you rs,

[Signature of official Redacted]
[Name of official Redacted]
1136
RIF
.s. n~p:trlml.'nl nf Justic:c
llurc:"u Jf Alcohol. Toh.lllO

1-1 rc.1rm:- and l : llplo>I \'c~
SEP 3 0 2004
903050 (b) (6)
331111004-379
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
Deur
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
This rcrcrs 10 ynur letter QfFebruary (1. 200.J. lo the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, F1rcnnns n111l
Explomcs IATF), fircanns Tcchnolog)' Branch (FTB), in "Inch you mqum:tl about the legaht>
of u small secuon of strini: mlcnded for use as a mt:ans for incri:asing the cycling rate of a
scrmuutomatic nflc:.
As you may be aware, the Nauonnl Firc:imu Act, '.!6 U.S C. 58.J5(b), defines "machim:gun" tu
mclu.lc the following:
nn)' \\capon 1hnl ohuol~. 11 Jc~1gncd 10 shoo!, or con be rc:oJily rcs1orcd lo shoot, nulnmnucully mon:
lli:in one shot, wtthout m:iniul reloading by o single function 11f1hc 1n~gcr l11is tcnn sholl also include
the fr~mc or n:ccl\~r of :in)' such wcap<m, any part dcsli:neti 11n1l ln1cnllcti solely und ud11hcly, nr
comhl1111don of parts designed 1111d hllcnJcd, for u~ h1 comcrllni: a \\tllpon Into a machlnci:u11, and
nny combtnahon parts from which a michmegun can be usscmbkd r such 1>3ns :ire m the posscsS1on
ot untlc:r 1hc coorrol of o JICTSOn [bnldmg addcdf
or
In I 996. FTB examined ;ind cl;issificd a 14-inch long shoestring \\ilh a loop 111 each end The
string was atlllchcd 10 the cockmg handle o( a scmiautom;itic rifle and was looped around 1hc
trigger and nllachcd to the shooter's linger Titc dt:\'ICC caused the \\capon to tire rcpe:ilcdly
until lin1:1cr pressure: was rcknscd from 1hc string. Bt.'C:iusc: this itc:m \\ u.s designed nnd mlcndcd
to con\crt u scmmut0111:itic rifle into a m;ichincgun, FTB dctcrmmcd 1h:it 11\\a.~a11111chlnc:~tin
as dcfim:tl tn 26 U.S.C. S845(b).
\\'c thnnk you for your m4uiry. regret the del~y m response, and trust the foregoing has been
rcspons1\c.
Sirn:crcly yours,
s:~/
Sterling Lon
Chief, Fircann5 Tc:chnology Branch
1137
RIP
Pnge 1 of!
CtPARTHENT OF THt TREASURY
Bureau o! Alcohol , Tobacco and Fi rear=s
W3shi~;ton, o . c . 20226
JUN i 191 4
cc-~J.12J
n::JllP
HtMOiUINOUll TO: Special h;ent in Char9e

Detroit rield Division
na!:
Associa:e Chief C~unsel

(F1raanas And txploalves l
SUllJCT:
Policy
Clari!ic~tion
This is in re,ponae to y()\ll
reque~t
-- Conversion Kits
!or an o p1nion whether a
chine converaion kit ia a "tlrea.,. tor purposfts of th~ CUn

Cor.trol Act o! 1969 (CCA) , 18 U s.c. Chapter 44. You advise that
this opinion i s sou9ht by the United States District t our: !er the
eastern Distric t o! Michigan.
For purposes of the G:A, the te""' "fi rear111 is dc!lned in l i
oect1on 921 (1 (3) to :aean:
u.s.c.
!Al any weapon lincludin9 a starter 9un) which wi11 or is

ditsiqnad to or ~Y readily be converted to expel a projectile
by the action oC an explolve; ( Bl the !r&111e or receive: o:
any uch waapon; (Cl any !l:aai:o Qu(!ler or !lreana silencer;
or (DI any destruc:ive de~!ce
Hachina;un convera1on kit are not a::ong the it~ da!!r.ed aa
!irea:a:s by sacti~n 921(aJl J l . Therefo:e, ~china gun conversion
k!ta o:e not su~'ect to requlat!cn 11 !1rear:a.s under :he Ge~. Fa=
exa:ople. e person an;a;ed in the busineaa o! de1lin9 only in 1uch
cite wculd not be req-~!:ad to obtain a l!cense aa a de1le: 1n
!!raari::s under :he GCA. Alao, a peraor. wbo transferred a
aochinegun conversion kit to o !elo= or other pc=aon prohibited
!roe recei~ln; or pooc~oin; !lroarna would not violate 19 u.s.c.
1ection 922(d), nor would thn prohil>ited peraon's receipt or
posseasion o! the kl: violate 18 U.S.C. 1ection 922 (9) .
- 2 -
Special llqent in Charge

Datroit Fiotd Divialon
Koveer, 11achino9ur. co~veraion kits are within the de!lni tion cf
.uachlne;un tor pi::poata o! tho GC1. ~nd a:e, therefore, subject to
all GCA controls impo1ad upon ruchine;una. ior GCA purpoaoa, the
definition of "ruchine;un in 11 u.s.c. eectic;>n 921 (al (231
incorporate the definition o! such teno in the National rirean:.
Act, 26 u.s.c. 1acc1on S94S(b!. A de!!nad by saction 584Slbl,
M:a.achinegun~ =ne, as:1on9 o:her tb!n9a, any . . ca=lib!~a~ic~ o!
~rts deaiqned &nd 1ntanded, to: ue ln convertinq wepon into &
aachir.cqun, i . e., ~achlr.equn conversion kit. Thu1, unde~ the
GCA, ~chine;u~ ccnvers1on kit ia, !o~ exat:pl e, a m.achin;u~
aul>Ject to tho prohi~l:ion with rea;>ect to possession &n~ trans!er
o! r.:achine9uns ln 18 u.s.c. aection 922(ol 4nd tho prohibition in
!I u.s. c . section ta! 141 aqainst transporting machine9uns
interstate vithouc the approval ot the Secretary ot the Treaaury.
~ac k
(sl9nedJ
8. Pattecaon
hnp//www.cs.cmu.cdufafs/csluser/wbarowcUpublic/nfBlist/11tf_lcttcr37.txt
1138
6/18/2009
RIF
(b) (6)
Ph_one: (b) (6)
Concentration:
Research and design conversion systems that allow legal semiautomatic firearms to be
constructed from machinegun "parts" kits. Reverse engineer firearm components to
produce manufacturing drawings.
Performed research and development for the following licensed firearms

manufacturers:
Century International Arms, Georgia, VT
Historic Arms LLC, Franklin, GA
Rapid Fire LLC, Troy, OH
Designed semiautomatic Fire Control Groups for the following firearms:

British Vickers .303 Inch Medium Machinegun
Czech vz58 Assault Rifle
German MG 15 Machinegun
German MG42 Machinegun
A) Using Belgian FN-FAL Fire Control Group components
B) Using USA AR-15 Fire Control Group components
German I Romanian ST-61 Machinegun
Soviet DP28 Machinegun
Soviet RPO Machinegun
USA Thompson Sub-machinegun (Models Ml928, Ml, and MlAl)
Reverse engineer the following machinegun Receivers with modifications to allow

semiautomatic firing only:
British Vickers .303 Inch Medium Machinegun
Czech vz58 Assault Rifle
German MG 15 Machinegun
German I Romanian ST-61 Machinegun
Soviet DP28 Machinegun
Soviet RPO Machinegun
Soviet SG-43 Machinegun
Swiss PE-57 Rifle
Swiss AMT Rifle
USA Thompson Sub-machinegun (Models M 1928, M 1, and M 1A1)
1139
RIP
April 2009
Name:
EDWARD J. SHAUGHNESSY, JR.
Rank:
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Born:
Boston, Massachusetts, 1948
Degrees:
B.E. (Mechanical Engineering)

Manhattan College, 1969
M.S. (Aerospace Engineering)
University of Virginia, 1971
Ph.D. (Aerospace Engineering)
University of Virginia, 1975
Professional Engineer:
North Carolina
Employment:
Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Duke University, 1975.
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Duke University, 1979.
Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Duke University, 1985.
Director of Graduate Studies, 1980 - 1983.
Societies:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Sigma Xi
Tau Beta Pi
Pi Tau Sigma
Awards:
Duke Endowment Award for Excellence in Teaching, 1979.
Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1993.
Senior Member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1995.
Courses Taught:
ME 126 Fluid Mechanics
ME160 Mechanical Systems Design
ME221 Compressible Fluid Flow
ME226 Intermediate Fluid Mechanics
ME227 Advanced Fluid Mechanics
1140
RIF
Edward J. Shaughnessy, Jr.

Page2
Provisional Patent Applications:
Closed bolt conversion device for the MAC family of open bolt submachine guns 8-2505
External sear link for the MAC family of open bolt machine guns 8-26-05
Modular closed bolt upper receiver mounting adapter for the MAC family of open bolt
submachine guns 8-30-05
Consultant:
Teleco Oilfield Services, Inc .
Medical Private Diagnostic Clinic
Dept. of Radiology, DUMC
Department of Medicine, DUMC
Flow Industries, Inc.
InnovaTech, Inc.
Graduate Research Institute,
Univ. of Arkansas
U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Institute
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.
Nello L. Teer Company
Micro Composite Materials Corporation
IEP Group
Reviewer:
J. Fluids Engineering
J. Heat Transfer
Applied Mechanics Review
Numerical Methods in Heat Transfer
Symposium on Turbulence
ASME Air Pollution Control Division
ASME Heat Transfer Division
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
J. Biomechanical Engineering
Physics Letters A
National Science Foundation

U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Atmospheric Environment
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. Society
The Whitaker Foundation
Experimental Thermal and Fluid
Science
Numerical Heat Transfer
John Wiley & Sons
Research Grants:
Heat Transfer and Flow Between Concentric Rotating Spheres of Unequal Temperature,
2 years, $42,600, National Science Foundation, 1975, Principal Investigator.
Development of a Laser-Doppler Velocimeter for the Measurement of Turbulent Mixing
in Natural Waters, $7000, North Carolina Science and Technology Committee, 1977,
Principal Investigator.
Evaluation of Diode Lasers for Environmental Monitoring, $3800 Royal Scientific
Society, Jordan, 1978, Principal Investigator.
1141
RIF

Page 3
Research Grants Continued:
Measurement of Turbulent Mixing in Geophysical Flows by Laser-Doppler
Anemometry, 2 years, $9000, U.S. Geological Survey, 1979, Principal Investigator.
Relating Flow Structure Within Forest Canopies to Turbulent Exchange With the
Atmosphere, 3 years, $159,500, National Science Foundation, 1980, K.R. Knoerr, School
of Forestry, and E.J. Shaughnessy, Co-Principal Investigators.
Measurement of Vertical Velocity Fluctuations in Geophysical Flows by Laser-Doppler
Anemometry, 2 years, $10,500, U.S. Geological Survey, 1981, Principal Investigator.
Evaluation of a Prototype Deep Well Pump, $33,917, U.S. Geological Survey, 1981,
Relating Flow Structure Within Forest Canopies to Turbulent Exchange With the
Atmosphere, 1 year extension, $67 ,000, National Science Foundation, 1982, K.R.
Knoerr, School of Forestry and E.J. Shaughnessy, Co-Principal Investigators.
Corona Wind and Turbulence in Full Scale Electrostatic Precipitators, 2 years, $180,000,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982, Principal Investigator.
Screening Program for Novel Viscoelastic Biopolymers Produced by
Microphotoautotrophs, $271,000, Defense Advance Research Project Agency, 1984,
Joseph Ramus, Duke University Marine Laboratory, Principal Investigator; E.J.
Shaughnessy, Senior Researcher.
Flow Within Deformable Bodies, 1 yr, $16,000, Lord Corporation, 1986, Principal
Investigator.
Coronary Flow Probe, 1 yr, $50,000, Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 1986, CoPrincipal Investigator.
Coronary Flow Probe, 6 mo., $38,000, Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 1986,
Vascular Diagnostic Systems, 6 mo., $34,895, NSF/ERC., 1988, Principal Investigator.
Vascular Diagnostic Systems, 1 yr., $54,108, NSF/ERC, 1989, Principal Investigator.
Acquisition ofa Workstation, 1 yr., $15,000, Biomedical Research Support Grant, 1989,
Vascular Diagnostic Systems, 1 yr., $54,649, NSF/ERC, 1990, Principal Investigator.
Flow in Coronary Arteries, 1 yr., 50 Cray Y-MP hours@ ($750/hr), North Carolina
Supercomputing Center, 1990, Principal Investigator.
1142
RIF

Page4
Research Grants Continued:
Computational Fluid Dynamics, 1 yr., $52,641, NSF/ERC, 1991, Principal Investigator.
Flow in a 90 degree Bifurcation of a Rigid Tube, 1 yr., 100 Cray Y-MP hours@
($750/hr), North Carolina Supercomputing Center, 1991, Principal Investigator.
Visualization of the Hemodynamics in the Neighborhood of the End to Side Arterial
Graft, 1 yr, 140 Cray Y-MP hours@ ($750/hr}, $7,000 Graduate student support, North
Carolina Supercomputing Center and Cray Research, 1992, Principal Investigator.
Flow in Coronary Arteries, l yr. extension , 50 Cray Y-MP hours@ ($750/hr), North
Carolina Supercomputing Center, 1994, Principal Investigator.
Computational Fluid Dynamics Equipment Support, Micro Composite Materials
Corporation, 1995, 1 yr., $8,000, Principal Investigator.
Computational Fluid Dynamics Equipment Support, Duke University, 1995, 1 yr.,
$8,650, Principal Investigator.
Flow Visualization for MicroFlumes: Integrated Analysis and CAD, Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, 1998, 1 yr., $1,305,479, Hugh Crenshaw, David Needham,
E.J. Shaughnessy, Co-Principal Investigators.
Theses and Dissertations Suoervised:
Combined Natural and Forced Thermal Convection in a Rotating Spherical Annulus,
R.W. Douglass, December 1975, Ph.D.
Natural Convection in Low Prandtl Number Fluids Within a Horizontal Cylindrical
Annulus, J.R. Custer, October 1976, M.S.
A Finite Element Approach to Damped Acoustic Problems, B.J. Stephens, May 1978,
Ph.D.
Spectral Methods for Boundary Value Problems in Heat Transfer, J.T. McMurray,
October 1978, M.S.
Development of a Laser-Doppler Velocimeter for Use in the Aquatic Environment, J.R.
Custer, May 1979, Ph.D.
GaAlAs Diode Lasers for Laser-Doppler Anemometry, F.H. Zu'bi, December 1979, M.S.
Measurement ofNonstationary Turbulent Flow in a Tidal Channel by Laser Doppler
Velocimetry, J.T. McMurray, December 1980, Ph.D.
Electrohydrodynamics, L.D. Flippen, August 1982, Ph.D.
1143
RIF
Edward J. ~haughnessy, Jr.

Page 5
Theses and Dissertations Supervised (Continued)
Turbulence in the Pivers Island Channel, F.H. Zu'bi, December 1982, Ph.D.
Microscale Pressure Fluctuations Within a Deciduous Forest, J. Sigmon, May 1983,
Ph.D. (co-chairman with K. Knoerr).
Electrically Driven Flow in a Needle-Plane Electrode Geometry. G.S. Solomon, July
1983, M.S.
The Measurement of Turbulent Energy Spectra in the Pivers Island Channel, T.G.
Bifano, December 1983, M.S.
The Electric Field and Vorticity Production in a Wire-Plate Precipitator With Uniform
Discharge, J.C. Hay, April 1984, M.S.
The Pressure Distribution in a Gas in Electrohydrostatic Equilibrium, M.K. Weaver, May
1984, M.S.
Secondary Flows and Turbulence in Electrostatic Precipitators, J.H. Davidson, July 1984,
Ph.D.
The Electrohydrodynamics of Real Fluids, D.A. Nelson, October 1984, Ph.D.
Digital Compensation of Thermistor Flowmeters, l.M. Katz, April 1985, M.S.
Design and Analysis of an Implantable Cerebrospinal Fluid Shunt Pump, T.G. Clerkin,
July 1985, M.S.
Flow of a Confined Viscous Fluid Due to Large Amplitude Motion of a Compliant
Boundary, M.K. Weaver, December 1987, Ph.D.
A Constant Temperature Thermistor Anemometer, J.A. Gottwald, December 1987, M.S.
A Lagrangian Description of 1-D Compressible Flow With Heat Addition, D. Mendivil,
April 1988, M.S .
The Numerical Simulation of Compressible Flow in a Lagrangian Particle Description,
I.M. Katz, April 1988, Ph.D.
Computational Simulation of Flow in a Stenosed Tube for the Evaluation of a Magnetic
Resonance Image, E. Reynolds, December 1991, M.S.
Conjugate Natural Convection in Inclined Fractures, James W. Van Gilder, December
1993, M.S.
1144
RIF

Page 6
Theses and Dissertations Supervised (Continued)
Finite Element Simulation of the Hemodynamics in the Neighborhood of the End to Side
Arterial Graft, Robert S. Burrus, Jr., May 1999, Ph.D.
Refereed Publications:
1. E.J. Shaughnessy, The Symmetric Normal Modes in a Rotating Gas. AIAA Paper No.
71-999, 1971.
2. J.B. Morton and E.J. Shaughnessy, Waves in a Gas in Solid-Body Rotation. J. Fluid
Mech. 56(2) pp. 277-286, 1972.
3. E.J. Shaughnessy and J.B. Morton, Laser Light-Scattering Measurements of Particle
Concentration in a Turbulent Jet. J. Fluid Mech. 80, pp. 129-147, 1977.
4. E.J. Shaughnessy and J.B. Morton, Laser Light-Scattering Technique for Measurements
ofTurbulent Mixing. Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1 January, 1977, pp. 1011.
5. J.R. Custer and E.J. Shaughnessy, Thermoconvective Motion of Low Prandtl Number
Fluids Within a Horizontal Cylindrical Annulus. J. Heat Transfer, 99, pp. 596-602, 1977.
6. J.R. Custer and E.J. Shaughnessy, Natural Convection in Liquid Metals in an Enclosure.
J. Heat Transfer, 99, pp. 675-676, 1977.
7. R.W. Douglass, B.R. Munson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Thermal Convection in Rotating
Spherical Annuli Part 1: Forced Convection. Int'l J. Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 21,
No. 12, pp. 1543-1553, 1978.
8. R.W. Douglass, B.R. Munson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Thermal Convection in Rotating
Spherical Annuli Part 2: Stratified Flows. Int'l J. Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 21, No.
12, pp. 1555-1564, 1978.
9. E.J. Shaughnessy, J.R. Custer and R.W. Douglass, Partial Spectral Expansions for
Problems in Thermal Convection. J. Heat Transfer, 100, pp. 435-441 , 1978.
10. E.J. Shaughnessy and R.W. Douglass, The Effect of Stable Stratification on the Motion
in a Rotating Spherical Annulus, Int'I J. Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 21 , No. 9, pp.
1251-1259, 1978.
11 . E.J. Shaughnessy and F.H. Zu'bi, GaAlAs Diode Sources for Laser-Doppler
Anemometry, Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 33, No. 9, 1 November 1978, pp. 835-836.
12. E.J. Shaughnessy and J.T. McMurray, Chebyshev Matrix Methods for the Heat Equation:
Convergence and Accuracy, ASME Paper No. 79HT-62, 1979.
1145
RIF

Page 7
Refereed Publications (Continued)
13. J.T. McMurray and E.J. Shaughnessy, Spectral Methods for Transient Heat Conduction
Problems in Simple Geometries, ASME Paper No. 79HT-61, 1979.
14. R.W. Douglass, E.J. Shaughnessy and B.R. Munson, Small Reynolds Number
Convection in Rotating Spherical Annuli. J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 427-433,
1979.
15. J.T. McMurray and E.J. Shaughnessy, Chebyshev Matrix Methods for Two Dimensional
Heat Conduction Problems. Numerical Methods in Heat Transfer, T.M. Shih, ed., pp.
398-418, 1979.
16. P.A. Lawless, A.S. Damle, A.S. Viner, E.J. Shaughnessy and L.E. Sparks, Laser-Doppler
Anemometer Measurements of Particle Velocity in a Laboratory Precipitator.
Proceedings: Third Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control
Technology, EPA-600-9-82-005b, pp. 25-34, 1982.
17. A.S. Viner, M.B. Ranade, E.J. Shaughnessy, D.C. Drehmel and B.E. Daniels, A Wind
Tunnel for Dust Entrainment Studies. Proceedings: Third Symposium on the Transfer
and Utilization of Particulate Control Technology, EPA-600-9-82-00Sd, pp. 168-178,
1982.
18. J.T. McMurray and E.J. Shaughnessy, Measurements of Turbulence in a Tidal Channel
Using a Laser-Doppler Velocimeter, Engineering Application of Laser Velocimetrv,
Hugh W. Coleman, ed., pp. 171-178, November 1982.
19. J.T. Sigmon, K.R. Knoerr and E.J. Shaughnessy, Microscale Pressure Fluctuations
Within a Deciduous Forest. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, Vol. 27, pp. 345-358, 1983.
20. J.T. Sigmon, K.R. Knoerr and E.J. Shaughnessy, Leaf Emergence and Flow Through
Effects on Mean Windspeed Profiles and Microscale Pressure Fluctuations in a
Deciduous Forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vol. 31, pp. 329-337, 1984.
21. J.H. Davidson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Mean Velocity and Turbulent Intensity Profiles in a
Full Scale Laboratory Precipitator. ASME Paper No. 84-JPGC-APC-1, 1984.
22. J.P. Schaffer, E.J. Shaughnessy and P.L. Jones, The Deconvolution of Doppler
Broadened Positron Annihilation Measurements Using Fast Fourier Transfonns and
Power Spectral Analysis. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, BS, pp.
75-79, 1984.
23. J.H. Davidson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Turbulence Generation by Electric Body Forces.
Presented at the Ninth Biennial Symposium on Turbulence, Rolla, October 1984.
1146
RIF

Page 8
24. E.J. Shaughnessy and T.G. Bifano, Measurements of the Energy Spectrum in a Tidal
Channel Using a Second Generation Submersible Laser-Doppler Anemometer.
Symposium .Q!! Turbulence, X.B. Reed, G .K. Patterson and J .L. Zakin, ed., pp. 282-292,
1984.
25. D.A. Nelson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Electric Field Effects on Natural Convection in
Enclosures. Heat Transfer in Enclosures, R.W. Douglass and A.F. Emery, ed., pp. 13-20,
1984.
26. J.T. Sigmon, K.R. Knoerr and E.J. Shaughnessy, Characteristics of Microscale Pressure
Fluctuations and Their Relationships to Mean Wind Speed and Direction in a Deciduous
Forest. Proceedings of the 17th Conference .Q!! Agriculture and Forest Meteorology,
American Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass., pp. 88-91, 1985.
27. J.H. Davidson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Secondary Flow and Turbulence Generation by
Electric Body Forces, Invited paper, 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Engineering
Science, October 7-9, 1985, University Park, PA.
28. E.J. Shaughnessy, J.H. Davidson and J.C. Hay, The Fluid Mechanics of Electrostatic
Precipitators. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 471-76, 1985.
29. J.P. Schaffer, E.J. Shaughnessy and P.L. Jones, On the Application of Fast Fourier
Transforms and Power Spectrum Analysis to Incorrectly Posed Fredholm Integral
Equations. Integral Methods in Science and Engineering, F.R. Payne, C.C. Corduneanu,
A. Haji-Sheikh and T. Huang, ed., pp. 74-82, 1986.
30. M.K. Weaver and E.J. Shaughnessy, A Technique for Pressure Measurement in the
Active Electrical Zone of a Wire-Cylinder Electrostatic Precipitator. IEEE Trans. on
Industrial Applications, Vol. lA-22, No. 2, pp. 235-239, 1986.
Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 17-26, 1986.
32. D.A. Nelson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Electric Field Effects on Natural convection in
Enclosures. J. Heat Transfer, Vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 749-754, 1986.
33. E.J. Shaughnessy, J.H. Davidson and J.C. Hay, The Fluid Dynamics of Electrostatic
Precipitators: Effects of Electrode Geometry. Proceedings: Fifth Symposium on the
Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control Technology, Vol. 2, p. 32-1, 1986.
34. J.H. Davidson and E.J. Shaughnessy, An Electrostatic Precipitator Facility for
Turbulence Research. Proceedings: Fifth Symposium .Q!! the Transfer and Utilization of
Particulate Control Technology, Vol. 2, p. 30-1, 1986.
1147
RIF

Page 9
35. I.M. Katz and E.J. Shaughnessy, Digital Temperature Compensation ofThennistor
Flowmeters. J. Phys. E:Sci. Instrum. Vol. 20, pp. 561-564, 1987.
36. L.D. Flippen and E.J. Shaughnessy, Electrohydrodynamic Generalizations of the JeffreyHamel and Landau Similarity Solutions of Fluid Mechanics. Journal of the Mississippi
Academy of Sciences, vol. 32, pp. 1-18, 1987.
37. M.K. Weaver and E.J. Shaughnessy, An Impeller-Free Agitator for Suspension Culture
of Mammalian Cells. Bioprocess Engineering Colloquium, R.C. Dean, Jr., R.M. Nerem,
ed., p. 3-6, ASME, 1987.
38. I.M. Katz and E.J. Shaughnessy, An Electronically Switched Flowmeter and Temperature
Sensor Employing a Single Thennistor Probe, J. Phys. E: Sci. Instruments, Vol. 21, pp.
108-112, 1988.
39. M.K. Weaver and E.J. Shaughnessy, A Boundary-Condition Treatment for CompliantBoundary Driven Flow, A Collection of Technical Papers: AIAA/ASME/SIAM/APS lfil
National Fluid Dynamics Congress, Part 3, pp. 2078-2085, 1988.
40. J. Ramus, B.E. Kenney and E.J. Shaughnessy, Drag Reducing Properties of Microalgal
Exopolymers, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. 33, pp. 550-557, 1989.
41. I.M. Katz and E.J. Shaughnessy, Computer Aided Analysis of 1-D Compressible Flow
Problems in a Lagrangian Particle Description Using the a Method, Computers and
Fluids, Vol. 18, No. l, pp. 75-101, 1990.
42. l.M. Katz and E.J. Shaughnessy, The Equations of 1-D Compressible Flow With Area
Change in a Lagrangian Particle Description. Computers and Fluids, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.
183-190, 1990.
43. E.M. Ohman, S. Helmy, E.J. Shaughnessy, D.B. Adams, and J. Kisslo, In-Vitro Analysis
of Jets by Doppler Colour Flow Imaging: The Importance of Time to Maximum Jet
Area. European Heart Journal, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 361-367, 1990.
44. E.J. Shaughnessy and G.S. Solomon, The Electrohydrodynamics of the Point to Plane
Corona Discharge. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 193-200, 1991.
45. I.M. Katz, E.J. Shaughnessy, and Z. Zhang, A Method for Calculating the Average Cross
Section Pressure Distribution in Tube Flows Within the Vorticity-Stream Function
Fonnulation. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 349366, 1992.
46. J.M. Katz, E.J. Shaughnessy, and B.B. Cress. A Technical Problem in the Calculation of
Laminar Flow Near Irregular Surfaces Described by Sampled Geometric Data, Journal of
Biomechanics, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 461-464, 1995.
1148
RIF

Page 10
47. E.J. Shaughnessy and J.W. Van Gilder, Low Rayleigh Number Conjugate Convection in
Straight Inclined Fractures in Rock, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.
389-408, 1995.
48. J. H. Bond, E. J. Shaughnessy, and S. R. Wright, Boundary Layer Momentum Transfer
(BMLT) Theory As It Applies to Dynamic Particle Separation, Proceedings of the AFS
Annual National Conference & Expo: Technology Wins- Advances in Filtration and
Separation Technology, Vol.10, pp. 83-88, Valley Forge, PA, April 22,1996.
49. S. R. Wright, J.H. Bond, H. S. Crouch, D. A. Knight, and E. J. Shaughnessy, SelfCleaning, High Efficiency Dynamic Particle Exclusion Filter, Proceedings of the AFS
Annual National Conference & Expo: Technology Wins- Advances in Filtration and
Separation Technology, Vol.10, pp. 68-72, Valley Forge, PA, April 22,1996.
50. Hong Ren, Richard B. Fair, Michael G. Pollock, and Edward. J. Shaughnessy, Dynamics
of Electro-Wetting Droplet Transport, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 87 (1) (2002)
pp. 201-206.
51. E. J. Shaughnessy, I. M. Katz, and J.P. Schaffer, Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Oxford
University Press, 2004.
52. P. Ghadimi, J. D. Knight, and E. J. Shaughnessy, Film Rupture Modelling in TwoDimensional and One-Dimensional Solutions for the Long Journal Bearing, to be
submitted.
Other Publications and Presentations:
1. E.J. Shaughnessy, Adiabatic Waves in a Rotating Gas. Master's Thesis. University of
Virginia, 1971 .
2. E.J. Shaughnessy, The Symmetric Normal Modes in a Rotating Gas. Presented at the
AIAA 8th Annual Meeting and Technical Display, Washington, DC., 1971.
3. E.J. Shaughnessy, Measurement of Particle Diffusion in a Turbulent Jet by Laser LightScattering. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, 1974.
4. E.J. Shaughnessy and J.T. McMurray, Chebyshev Matrix Methods for the Heat
Equation: Convergence and Accuracy. Presented at the 18th ASME/AIChE National
Heat Transfer Conference, San Diego, CA, August, 1979.
5. J.T. McMurray and E.J. Shaughnessy, Spectral Methods for Transient Heat Conduction
Problems in Simple Geometries. Presented at the 18th ASME/ AIChE National Heat
Transfer Conference, San Diego, CA, August, 1979.
1149
RIF

Page 11
Other Publications and Presentations (Continued)
6. F.H. Zu'bi and E.J. Shaughnessy, Some Characteristics of a GaAlAs Diode Laser
Anemometer for Measuring Fluid Velocity. Presented at the 1981 Conference on Lasers
and Electro-Optics, Washington, DC, June 10-12, 1981.
7. J.T. McMurray and E.J. Shaughnessy, Measurement of Geophysical Turbulence by
Laser-Doppler Velocimetry. Presented at the 1981 Conference on Lasers and ElectroOptics, Washington, DC, June 10-12, 1981.
8. P.A. Lawless, A.A. Damle, A.S. Viner, E.J. Shaughnessy and L.E. Sparks, Laser-Doppler
Anemometer Measurements of Particle Velocity in a Laboratory Precipitator. Presented
at the IEEE-IAS Annual Meeting, PhiJadelphia, PA, October 1981, Library of Congress
#80-640-527.
9. P.A. Lawless, A.S. Damle, A.S. Viner, E.J. Shaughnessy and L.E. Sparks, Laser-Doppler
Anemometer Measurements of Particle Velocity in a Laboratory Precipitator. Presented
at the Third Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control
Technology, Orlando, FL, March 1981.
10. A.S. Viner, M.B. Ranade, E.J. Shaughnessy, D.C. Drehmel, and B.E. Daniels, A Wind
Tunnel for Dust Entrainment Studies. Presented at the Third Symposium on the Transfer
and Utilization of Particulate Control Technology, Orlando, FL, March 1981.
11. J.T. McMurray and E.J. Shaughnessy, Measurements of Turbulence in a Tidal Channel
Using a Laser-Doppler Velocimeter. Presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Phoenix, AZ, November 14-19, 1982.
12. E.J. Shaughnessy and T.G. Bifano, Measurements of the Energy Spectrum in a Tidal
Channel Using a Second Generation Submersible Laser-Doppler Anemometer.
Presented at the Eight Biennial Symposium on Turbulence, Rolla, MO, September 26-28,
1983.
13. E.J. Shaughnessy, J.H. Davidson, and J.C. Hay, The Fluid Dynamics of Electrostatic
Precipitators: Effects of Electrode Geometry. Presented at the Fifth Symposium on the
Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control Technology, Kansas City, MO, August
1984.
14. J.H. Davidson and E.J. Shaughnessy, An Electrostatic Precipitator for Turbulence
Research. Presented at the Fifth Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of
Particulate Control Technology, Kansas City, MO, August 1984.
15. J.H. Davidson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Mean Velocity and Turbulent Intensity Profiles in a
Full Scale Laboratory Precipitator. Presented at the 1984 Joint Power Generation
Conference, Toronto, October 1984.
1150
RIF

Page 12
Other Publications and Presentations (Continued)
Presented at the Ninth Biennial Symposium on Turbulence, Rolla, MO, October 1-3,
1984.
17. D.A. Nelson and E.J. Shaughnessy, First Order Property Variations in
Electrohydrodynamics. Presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society of
Engineering Science, October 15-17, 1984, Blacksburg, VA.
18. D.A. Nelson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Electric Field Effects on Natural Convection in
Enclosures. Presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New Orleans, LA, December 9-14, 1984.
19. J.P. Schaffer, E.J. Shaughnessy, and P.L. Jones, On the Application of Fast Fourier
Transforms and Power Spectrum Analysis to Incorrectly Posed Fredholm Integral
Equations. Presented at the International Conference on Integral Methods in Science and
Engineering, Arlington, Texas, March 18-21, 1985.
20. J.T. Sigmon, K.R. Knoerr, and E.J. Shaughnessy, Characteristics of Microscale Pressure
Fluctuations and Their Relationships to Mean Wind Speed and Direction in a Deciduous
Forest. Presented at the 17th Conference on Agriculture and Forest Meteorology,
Scottsdale, AZ, May 21-24, 1985.
21. J.H. Davidson and E.J. Shaughnessy, Secondary Flow and Turbulence Generation by
Electric Body Forces. Presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of
Engineering Science, University Park, PA, October 7-9, 1985.
22. M.K. Weaver and E.J. Shaughnessy, An Impeller-Free Agitator for Suspension Culture
of Mammalian Cells. Presented at the Winter Annual Meeting of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, Boston, MA, December 13-18, 1987.
23. D.A. Nelson and E.J. Shaughnessy, An Exact Solution for Electrically-Driven
Convection between Vertical Electrodes. Presented at the IEEE Industrial Appl. Society
1989 Meeting - San Diego, October 1989, Submitted to IEEE Trans. on Industrial
Applications.
1151
RIF
Engineering analysis of the design, function, and operational characteristics of the Historic
Arms Model 54RCCS Caliber Conversion System for the MIO machine gun.
Report prepared in response to the
Complaint of Forfeiture
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division
United States of America, Plaintiff

vs.
One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS "7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System" Machine Gun,
Serial No. Vt
Prepared by
Dr Edward J. Shaughnessy
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science
Duke University
All correspondence should be addressed to the author at 31 Southampton Place, Durham, NC

27705 or by email to ejshaughnessy@aol.com
1152
RIF
Nomenclature
The mechanical device examined in this report is referred to in various ways. The original
designation by Historic Arms is "Historic Arms Model 54RCCS Caliber Conversion System".
The plaintiff's legal action refers to the same device as "One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS
"7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System" Machine Gun, Serial No. Vl". In the interests of
brevity, this report will refer to the device as the Model 54RCCS. The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will be referred to as BATFE, and the Firearms Technology
Branch of this organization will be referred to as FTB.
Table of Contents
A. Introduction and brief summary of principal findings.
B. The Model 54RCCS is not a firearm in and of itself.
C. The Model 54RCCS is not a firearm frame or receiver.
D. Firearm frame or receiver.
E. Methodology to classify machine gun uppers.
12
F. Methodology to classify machine guns.
18
G. Classification of the Model 54RCCS.
23
H. Classification of the FTB Test device.
26
I. Concluding remarks.
31
1153
RIF
3
Any analysis of the Historic Arms Model 54RCCS Caliber Conversion System must
ultimately determine whether the device is a firearm in and of itself, a firearm frame or receiver,
or a non-firearm upper for the MIO machine gun. Ifthe Model 54RCCS is found to be a firearm,
or a firearm frame or receiver, then two additional questions must be answered: is the Model
54RCCS a short barreled rifle? Is it a machine gun?
In preparing this report, the author was mindful of the need to provide a full and complete
explanation of the thought process and methodologies that are used to arrive at the report's
findings. In this regard, the reader is directed specifically to sections D, E, and F, as these are
the sections that are intended to address any questions about process and methodology.
From the author's perspective, questions that ask what the Model 54RCCS is or is not, are
factual questions that are able to be answered by applying engineering analysis and testing. With
that caveat in mind, this report will demonstrate 1) that the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm in
and of itself, 2) that the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm frame or receiver, and 3) that the Model
54RCCS is a non-firearm upper for the Ml 0 machine gun that is functionally equivalent to the
standard MIO non-firearm upper.
Since there is an existing difference of opinion as to what the Model 54RCCS is or is not, it
is important to examine the test device and test procedure used by FTB in arriving at their stated
opinion that the Model 54RCCS is a machine gun. Having made that examination, this report
will also show 4) that the FTB test device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm
frame or receiver when attached to a standard MIO non-firearm upper, 5) that the FTB test
device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver and a machine
gun when attached to any MIO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system, and
6) that the FTB test device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is designed to provide an
extraordinary level of added operational functionality to any MIO non-firearm upper.
In
addition, the report will show 7) that any claim that the Model 54RCCS is itself a firearm, a
firearm frame or receiver, or a machine gun that is based upon the use of the FTB test device is
the outcome of a scientifically invalid test procedure, and 8) that the FTB test device consisting
of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun when attached
to the Model 54RCCS.
1154
RIF
An examination of the Model 54RCCS reveals that it is designed to be a replacement upper

for the MIO machine gun that attaches to the MIO lower receiver in the usual way and allows the
MIO to use a different caliber cartridge. There are other replacement MIO uppers available on
the market, and all have been correctly classified by BATFE as non-firearms irrespective of
whether the upper has an integral feed system. Before discussing the Model 54RCCS in detail, it
is necessary to review the characteristics of the MIO machine gun.
The MI 0 machine gun consists of an upper housing containing the bolt, firing pin (fixed to
the bolt), barrel, recoil system, and a lower housing containing the trigger, sear, and other
components of the firing mechanism. The MlO lower housing is usually referred to as the lower
receiver or lower. The lower receiver of the MIO is correctly classified as the regulated part by
BATFE, thus the MI 0 lower is a firearm, a firearm frame or receiver, and a machine gun. The
upper housing of the MIO is usually referred to as the upper. The MIO upper is a non-firearm
upper that is unregulated by BATFE, hence is an accessory freely available in the marketplace
without restrictions of any kind.
The MIO upper is open bolt in operation and relies on the energy stored in the recoil spring
to fire a cartridge. The upper employs a bolt with fixed firing pin that translates within a housing
that also contains the recoil system. The upper is open at the rear, but when attached to the MI 0
machine gun lower receiver, the lower receiver closes off the rear opening in the upper and
enables the recoil spring of the upper to be compressed. Because the MIO upper is open at its
rear, the upper is unable to fire a single shot in and of itself in the absence of the lower, a fact
that explains the MIO upper's classification as a non-firearm upper. A simple test, conducted by
the author on 6/24/09 in Thomasville, NC, shows that if the charging handle of the MIO upper is
pulled to the rear and released with the upper detached from the lower, the bolt moves towards
the rear, the recoil buffer and recoil spring protrude from the rear of the upper and all of these
parts remain in this rearward position. All MIO non-firearm uppers, including the standard MIO
non-firearm upper, those that are caliber conversion systems, and those that have attached feed
systems, share a specific key operational feature: the upper housing is open at the rear thereby
preventing the upper from firing a single shot in the absence of the MIO machine gun lower
receiver.
With this background in mind, an examination of the Model 54RCCS shows that it is open
bolt in operation and relies on the energy stored in the recoil spring to fire a cartridge. The bolt
and bolt carrier of the Model 54RCCS translate within a rectangular housing that also contains
the recoil spring and recoil buffer. Since the Model 54RCCS housing is open at its rear unless
1155
RIF
5
mated to the MIO machine gun lower, it is not possible for the Model 54RCCS to fire in and of
itself because it is impossible to develop the required tension in the recoil spring to activate the
firing mechanism. Thus the Model 54RCCS is identical to a standard MIO non-firearm upper in
that it cannot fire a single shot in and of itself in the absence of the M 10 machine gun lower.
The design of the Model 54RCCS includes the specific key operational feature of all M 10 nonfirearm uppers, namely that the upper housing is open at the rear. Consequently, the Model
54RCCS can be described as being functionally equivalent to the standard MIO non-firearm
upper.
The inability of the Model 54RCCS to fire in and of itself was physically demonstrated as
part of the testing co-witnessed by BATFE, Historic Arms, and this author on 6/10/09 in Coweta,
Georgia. On that occasion an attempt was made to cause the Model 54RCCS to fire a round from
a belt of ammunition in the absence of the MIO machine gun lower. This attempt did not result in
a shot being fired nor in any movement whatsoever of the bolt carrier or bolt due to the inability
to develop tension in the recoil spring after the charging handle was pulled to the rear. Pulling
the charging handle to the rear and releasing it simply caused the recoil spring and buffer of the
Model 54RCCS to protrude from the rear of the device and subsequently remain there at rest.
From the comparative analysis, testing, and discussion above, it is evident that the Model
54RCCS is not a firearm in and of itself because 1) it is unable to fire a shot in the absence
of the MlO machine gun lower receiver 2) it is designed to be a non-firearm upper for the
MIO machine gun, and 3) it is functionally equivalent to the standard MlO non-firearm
upper.

If we accept the three findings of the previous section, then we must logically conclude that
as is the case with the standard MIO non-firearm upper, the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm
frame or receiver. Then, since the Model 54RCCS is not firearm in and of itself, and is not a
firearm frame or receiver, we must further conclude that the Model 54RCCS cannot be either a
short barreled rifle or a machine gun. Rather, we conclude that the Model 54RCCS is
designed to be, and is, functionally equivalent to the standard MIO non-firearm upper.
Although the findings of sections B and C stand on their own merits, and are in no way
dependent on the methods, ideas, or assumptions employed in the remainder of this report,
section G will provide a more comprehensive and exhaustive analysis of the Model 54RCCS that
independently arrives at all of these same findings.
1156
RIF

To clarify any source of potential confusion or debate regarding a finding in this report that
the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm frame or receiver, as well as to better understand other
sections of this report, this section analyzes The Code of Federal Regulations at 27 CFR Part
478.11 where it provides the following definition of firearm frame or receiver:
Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt
or breechblock, a11d firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to
receive the barrel.
As will become clear in the discussion that follows, at the time of publication of this
regulation some 40 years ago, its definition of firearm frame or receiver was outdated,
technically obsolete, and of no use whatsoever if applied in a literal way to most firearms. To
comprehend this claim, consider the following.
For at least 100 years, firearm designers have found it useful to create designs for pistols,
rifles, shotguns, and machine guns that house some key operational features of the firearm in an
upper housing, and other key operational features in a lower housing. In most of these firearms
key operational features are shared, meaning the function in question is provided by a
mechanism whose parts are located in both the upper and lower. This design practice is well
known to most people familiar with firearms such as the Colt Model 1911 semi-automatic pistol.
The Model 1911 pistol has two main components: an upper housing or slide, containing the
barrel, bolt or breechblock, firing pin, and recoil spring, and a lower housing containing the
hammer, trigger and additional parts of the firing mechanism within the body of what is
essentially a grip frame.
Since its initial production nearly 100 years ago, the lower housing of the Colt 1911 has been
regarded as the firearm's receiver and hence is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives. The upper housing or slide of the Colt 1911 is not considered to be a
firearm, hence is an unregulated accessory item that may be purchased, transferred, and
possessed without restriction. One can in fact purchase a caliber conversion system for the Colt
1911 that is nothing more than a slide that incorporates changes to the barrel, bolt or
breechblock, firing pin, and recoil spring to enable the assembled pistol to operate in a different
caliber than the original 45 ACP caliber. This caliber conversion slide is not regulated by
1157
RIF
7
BATFE since it is a replacement slide for the Colt 1911, has the same key operational features as
the original Colt I 9 I 1 slide, is functionally equivalent to the original slide, and is not itself a
firearm.
In the rifle category, most people familiar with firearms will immediately recognize that the
ARIS semi-automatic rifle shares with the Colt I911 the common design element of separable
upper and lower housings. In the case of the ARI 5, the upper housing, or upper, contains the
barrel, barrel extension, bolt, bolt carrier, and firing pin. The AR 15 upper is not considered by
BATFE to be a firearm, hence is an accessory item that may be purchased, transferred, and
possessed without restriction. The lower housing of the ARIS, usually referred to simply as the
lower, or lower receiver, contains the hammer, trigger, and other parts of the firing mechanism as
well as the recoil system. The lower of the ARIS is regarded by BATFE as the firearm's receiver
and is therefore the regulated item. One can purchase a caliber conversion system for the ARIS
that is simply an upper that has been designed to operate in a different caliber than the original
upper. This caliber conversion upper is not regulated by BATFE since it has the same key
operational features as the original ARI 5 upper, is functionally equivalent to the original upper,
and is not itself a firearm.
If we now attempt to apply the definition of firearm frame or receiver as given at 27 CFR
478.11 to the Colt 1911 and ARIS we immediately perceive a substantial difficulty. The Colt
19I 1 slide is considered to be a non-firearm, yet it contains the bolt or breechblock, barrel, and
the firing pin, the latter being an essential component of the firing mechanism. The Colt 191 I
lower, which is considered to be the firearm frame or receiver, contains the hammer, trigger, and
other parts of the firing mechanism, but not the bolt or breechblock, or barrel. If applied
literally, the definition at 27 CFR 478.11 cannot be used to unambiguously determine which of
the two housings of this pistol is the firearm frame or receiver.
We reach a similar conclusion when we examine the ARIS to determine which part of this
rifle constitutes the firearm frame or receiver. The ARIS upper contains the barrel, barrel
extension, bolt, bolt carrier, and firing pin, with the latter an essential part of the firing
mechanism. The ARI 5 lower contains the hammer, trigger and other parts of the firing
mechanism, recoil system, and is considered to be the firearm frame or receiver, yet the lower
does not contain the bolt or breechblock, or barrel. We see once again that when applied literally
the definition at 27 CFR 478.l I cannot be used to unambiguously determine which of the two
housings of this rifle is the firearm frame or receiver.
1158
RIF
The reason for making these observations about the Colt 1911 and ARIS is to draw attention
to the fact that employing a literal reading of the definition at 27 CFR 478.11 to determine
what is, or is not, a firearm frame or receiver is simply impossible from a logical, scientific,
or engineering perspective. One can, however, apply a reasonable interpretation of the intent
of the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11, and use this interpretation as part
of a comprehensive methodology that leads to logical conclusions when one is tasked with
determining if a device is, or is not, a firearm; is or is not a firearm frame or receiver; and in the
present context, is or is not a machine gun.
In determining intent, the language of the definition at 27 CFR 478.11 of firearm frame or
receiver requires care in interpretation. First and foremost, we must take note of the fact that the
definition refers to "that part of a firearm", which indicates that the term firearm refers to the
entire, assembled firearm in its normal configuration, and that the definition is concerned with
identifying a specific single part rather than several parts or the entire firearm . Any assertion
that a firearm of any kind has, or may have, more that one firearm frame or receiver must be
firmly rejected. Such an assertion denies the clear meaning of the language "that part", and
would create legal and regulatory confusion with respect to all existing firearms having an upper
and lower housing. This confusion, of course, arises from the fact that as is the case with the
Coltl91 l and ARIS, the firearm frame or receiver of every one of these existing firearms is a
specific single part.
Returning to the language of the definition, we see that it says "which provides housing for"
followed by a list of items. So the definition points us to a specific single part of the entire
firearm that in some manner houses, holds, encloses, or contains, those items in the list that
follows.
Continuing to analyze the definition, we next see that it makes specific reference in the list to
"hammer", "bolt'', "breechblock", "firing mechanism", and "barrel", but makes no attempt to
define these particular components. Although a definition of hammer, bolt, breechblock, and
barrel would not seem necessary, the inclusive term "firing mechanism" requires additional
scrutiny.
A "firing mechanism" must refer to a mechanism, which in this context is a part or collection
of parts that acting together is able to produce a desired action or function.
The adjective
"firing" indicates that the action or function in question is that of causing the firearm to fire. A
hammer is certainly part of the firing mechanism of some firearms, but not all firearms have
hammers. Some firearms have strikers rather than hammers. Other firearms use the bolt carrier
1159
RIF
to strike the firing pin. Although "hammer" occurs separately in the definition, it is unlikely that
this was done to signal an intention to distinguish "hammer" from "firing mechanism" or to
interpret "firing mechanism" in some other way. For if such an intention existed, the definition
could, for example, have made use of the words "hammer.... and triggering mechanism" instead
of "hammer.... and firing mechanism".
Thus the meaning of "firing mechanism" must be
intended to include any and all of those parts that from a functional perspective enable a specific
firearm to fire.
The list of parts intended to be included in "firing mechanism" would therefore have to
include the striker if one is present, the bolt carrier, the bolt if the design uses the bolt to ignite
the primer, as well as the firing pin, hammer spring, trigger, trigger spring, sear, recoil spring,
safety, and the many other components of the "firing mechanism" of a given firearm. The
hammer, if one is present, is also part of the firing mechanism of a firearm, but "hammer" is
probably mentioned separately because of its prominence and ease of identification as an
essential part of the firing mechanism in older firearm designs.
Next we note that in referring to the barrel of the firearm, the definition says "and which is
usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel". A plausible interpretation here is
that the word "usually" is intended to inform us that a firearm frame or receiver often houses,
holds, encloses, or contains, the barrel, but that in some firearm designs, the firearm frame or
receiver may not include the barrel. It seems very unlikely that "usually" is intended to refer
solely to "threaded", i.e. to a specific way of attaching a barrel to the receiver.
Before arriving at a reasonable interpretation of intent, we must also note that since the
definition of firearm frame or receiver at CFR 478.11 makes no mention of a feed system, the
presence or absence of a feed system in the firearm, or its specific location in a firearm
consisting of an upper and lower, cannot play any role in the identification of a firearm frame or
receiver. This enables us to conclude that in the definition, "firing mechanism" means the set of
parts that enable the firearm to fire a single shot rather than a succession of shots. That is, the
definition indicates that whether the firearm is self-loading is irrelevant to determining what
single specific part of the entire firearm is the firearm frame or receiver.
Lastly we note that if the definition is read as requiring that every item in its list of items be
housed in the firearm frame or receiver, then we would be forced to conclude that most firearms,
and specifically the Colt 1911 and ARI 5, do not have a firearm frame or receiver at all, an
outcome that surely is not intended.
1160
RIF
10
With the above discussion in mind, the impossibility of applying the definition of firearm
frame or receiver in a strictly literal way to the task of detennining what is or is not a firearm
frame or receiver of most fireanns ought to be clear. The design of firearms for at least the last
I00 years has almost always distributed the items of interest to the definition among more than
one "housing". We cannot hope to find a housing in most firearms that contains all of the items,
and we cannot make the location of "barrel", or "bolt or breechblock", or "firing mechanism" the
sole criterion as the examples of the Colt 1911 pistol and ARIS rifle make clear. We cannot
make the location of the "hammer" the sole criterion either, for the firearm may not have a
hammer.
The solution to this dilemma is to focus on the logical intent of the definition to identify a
single specific part for regulation, leaving all other parts as unregulated items that can be readily
replaced in the event, say, of wear and tear. Then from a scientific and engineering perspective it
is clear that the intent of definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 is to enable
one to determine what single part of the entire firearm houses, holds, encloses, or contains the
preponderance of key operational features that enable the firearm to actually fire a single shot.
Having arrived at this interpretation, logic next dictates that in making this determination for a
firearm consisting of an upper and a lower, the first and central question is whether the upper or
lower will itself fire a shot in the absence of the other part needed to complete the fireann. If the
upper is able to fire in and of itself, that part is without question a fireann, and is therefore also
the fireann frame or receiver since it is the intent of the definition to identify this single specific
part of the entire fireann. The same is true of a lower that is able to fire a single shot in and of
itself. Such a lower is a firearm and is the fireann frame or receiver. On the other hand, if
neither the upper nor lower of a fireann will fire a shot in and of itself, then the above
interpretation of the intent of the definition at 27 CFR 478.11 enables us to identify the single
part that is the firearm frame or receiver, which is to say to identify the single part that is the
firearm, and hence is the regulated part of the overall firearm.
In the interpretation suggested here, the use of "preponderance of key operational features" is
chosen to indicate that we are to avoid an emphasis on counting parts rather than on
comprehending their relative importance in the operation of firing a single shot, and that we
avoid being unduly influenced by the presence or absence, or the location of, the four
specifically named parts (hammer, bolt, breechblock, barrel), or the presence or absence, or the
locations of the many other parts are part of the "firing mechanism".
The words "key
operational features" are used to draw our focus instead to all of the key features of the firearm's
1161
RIF
11
design that enable the firing of a single shot. Such features may be provided by some design
element that is not a physical part. A key operational feature may for example be an opening, a
hole, a shelf etc. Where are the preponderance of these features located? From an engineering
perspective, this is a logical way to decide which single part of the firearm is the firearm frame
or receiver.
Let us now see if this approach has merit. In the case of the Colt 1911 and ARl 5, neither
firearm's upper will fire in the absence of the lower. Likewise, neither firearm's lower will fire
in the absence of the upper. Which part of these two firearms contains the preponderance of key
operational features that enable either firearm to actually fire a single shot? Since the Colt 1911
and AR 15 lowers contain the hammer and the hammer spring that enables the hammer to strike
the firing pin, the approach described here instructs us to identify the lowers of these two
firearms as the firearm frame or receiver, despite the presence of the barrel, bolt or breechblock,
and firing pin in the uppers.
Earlier it was claimed that if applied in a literal way to most firearms, the definition of
firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 was outdated, technically obsolete, and of no use
whatsoever. The interpretation of intent given here provides a logical and flexible approach that
enables that same definition to remain up to date, technically correct, and useful when applied to
identify the firearm frame or receiver of any firearm.
The author has developed a first comprehensive methodology that is designed to be
specifically applicable to determine the appropriate classification of machine gun uppers such as
the Model 54RCCS. The methodology yields logical and defensible results when applied to any
machine gun upper, and it clearly distinguishes non-firearm uppers from firearm uppers. In
addition, the author has developed a second comprehensive methodology based in part on the
interpretation of intent discussed above that enables one to determine whether the upper or lower
of any machine gun contains the firearm frame or receiver, a determination which is itself a
critical factor in the classification of a machine gun upper. The first of these two methodologies,
namely, the methodology to classify machine gun uppers is described and illustrated in detail in
the next section.

This section describes a methodology that may be used to determine whether a newly
designed upper for an existing machine gun is a non-firearm upper, or is itself either a firearm or
a machine gun. The process, referred to as classification, begins by assuming that a newly
1162
RIF
12
designed upper for an existing machine gun is submitted in order to be classified. It is assumed
that this existing machine gun (the host machine gun) is of the type in which the lower is
correctly classified as the regulated part, which is to say that the lower is a firearm, a firearm
frame or receiver, and a machine gun. Because of the assumption that the machine gun lower
is correctly identified as the firearm frame or receiver, this methodology to classify
machine gun uppers does not rely in any way on the interpretation of the definition of
firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 that is discussed in section D.
The use of the word correctly in two places above is both deliberate and extremely important
since a valid procedure based on engineering analysis simply cannot be constructed unless the
regulated part of the host machine gun is correctly identified. The correct classification of
machine guns themselves, i.e. the correct identification of the firearm frame or receiver, is
discussed in section F of this report. Both sections use a number of examples through out to
illustrate various elements of the respective classification methodologies. After describing the
methodology to classify machine gun uppers, it is applied in Part G specifically to the Model
54RCCS.
The steps in the classification procedure for a machine gun upper are:
1) Determine the make and model of the machine gun for which the submitted upper is intended
(the host machine gun) so that one can review the operational and design characteristics of the
host machine gun in its original configuration, and verify that the host consists of a non-firearm
host upper and a machine gun host lower. If this is the case, the firearm frame or receiver is
contained in the machine gun host lower.
2) Next determine the key operational features of the host machine gun as related specifically to
the function of firing a single shot. For example, is the host machine gun open or closed bolt,
fixed or moveable firing pin, hammer fired or striker fired? These and other key operational
features are typically distributed within both the upper and lower, but we may logically assign
these features to the host upper for the purpose of classification of the upper.
3) After careful study of the design of the upper submitted for classification, and of its operation
when assembled to the machine gun host lower, determine whether the submitted upper is
identical, functionally equivalent, or functionally non-equivalent to the non-firearm host upper.
1163
RIF
13
4) If the submitted upper is identical to, or functionally equivalent to, the non-firearm host upper,
the correct classification of the submitted upper is that it is a non-firearm upper. To make this
detennination, consideration must be given to the following:
4a) an identical upper is one designed to be a duplicate of the host upper. It follows that the
identical upper has exactly the same key operational features as the host upper and shares the
host upper's classification as a non-firearm upper. Cosmetic differences in an identical upper are
not significant and do not affect the determination that the submitted upper is identical. An
example of an identical upper is any OEM type replacement upper for the MIO machine gun.
4b) a functionally equivalent upper is one that is determined to be incapable of firing a single
shot in the absence of the host lower. Note carefully that the key operational features of a
functionally equivalent upper may be identical to, or substantially different from, those of the
host upper, but by applying engineering analysis and/or testing, the submitted upper is
determined to be incapable of firing a single shot in the absence of the host lower. This
establishes that the submitted upper is the functional equivalent of the host non-firearm upper
despite differences in design, features, and appearance.
4c) a functionally non-equivalent upper is one that is determined to be capable of firing a
single shot in the absence of the host lower irrespective of its similarity in key operational
features to the non-firearm host upper. An upper that is functionally non-equivalent is correctly
classified as a firearm, hence is also a firearm frame or receiver. Further analysis and/or testing
must be employed to determine if this firearm upper is a machine gun.
5) The process of deciding that a submitted upper is, or is not, functionally equivalent to the host
non-firearm upper may appear to be challenging. This arises from the fact that some of the key
operational features of the submitted upper may be different from the host non-fireann upper, yet
the differences have no impact whatsoever on the determination of whether the submitted upper .
is a non-firearm upper. The key to a correct classification is a process that focuses
specifically on the question of whether the submitted upper is capable of firing a single shot
in the absence of the lower. For reasons to be explained in more detail in part E3, in testing a
submitted upper it is absolutely necessary to evaluate this capability when the upper alone
is manipulated as intended by the designer of the upper during normal operation of the
assembled firearm.
1164
RIF
14
The remaining parts of this section analyze a variety of examples and further explain this
process of examining a submitted upper to determine if it is identical, functionally equivalent, or
functionally non-equivalent to the host non-fireann upper.
El) Consider the many different M16 uppers that are commercially available but not
necessarily identical to the host upper delivered with a specific M 16 machine gun from the
manufacturer.
These uppers have different barrel lengths, calibers, types of gas operation,
cocking handle location etc. All have the same key operational features of the original Ml6
upper (closed bolt, moveable firing pin, hammer fired) that permit the upper to operate properly
with the M16 lower, and consequently all of these uppers are incapable of firing a single shot in
the absence of the lower. They are all correctly classified as non-firearm uppers since they are
either identical or functionally equivalent to the host non-firearm upper.
E2) It should be carefully noted that whether a functionally equivalent upper includes a
magazine housing or other feed system that differs from, or is not present in, the host upper is of
no relevance whatsoever in determining functional equivalence. The reason, of course, is that the
feed system plays no role in enabling the upper to fire a single shot that has been manually
placed in the chamber. Moreover, logic dictates that if the functionally equivalent upper is itself
not a fireann, (because it cannot fire a single shot in and of itself, and is the functional equivalent
of the host non-firearm upper) it cannot be a machine gun. To further clarify this point, note that
the assembled machine gun is intended to fire repeatedly, hence the assembled fireann must
provide a feed mechanism of some type and in some location within the firearm to achieve this
functionality. What does not matter is whether this functionality is included in the upper or lower
of the assembled machine gun.
To illustrate this important point about the irrelevance of the presence or absence of a feed
system in a functionally equivalent upper, consider the following functionally equivalent uppers
for the host Ml 119 submachine gun: the Fleming-SubCal 22lr caliber conversion upper, the
Smith, and the Mendenhall uppers. Similar functionally equivalent uppers exist for the M 10
submachine gun. All of these uppers are unable to fire by themselves, have the same key
operational features as the standard Ml 119 or Ml 0 non-fireann uppers, thus all are functionally
equivalent to the host non-firearm upper. The methodology of this section and the Firearms
Technology Branch of BATFE correctly classify all of these replacement uppers as non-firearm
uppers. Although the standard Ml 119 and MIO non-fireann uppers do not contain a magazine
housing, the cited examples of functionally equivalent replacement uppers for these machine
guns all provide a magazine housing as part of the upper. However, for the reasons given earlier,
1165
RIF
15
this provision of a feed system in the upper has no impact whatsoever on the FTB classification
since they are all non-fireann uppers.
E3) Engineering analysis is often sufficient to determine that a submitted upper is a nonfirearm upper, but in some cases physical testing may be needed to verify a conclusion. If testing
is employed to determine whether a submitted upper is capable of firing a single shot in the
absence of the host lower, the upper alone should be manipulated only as intended by the
designer during normal operation of the assembled firearm. This is a critically important point if
the intention is to construct a scientifically valid test procedure.
The person performing a test must remain aware that a test device that attaches to an upper,
or adds any parts to the upper, or which provides an external source of energy to the upper,
always affects the functionality of the upper. From an engineering perspective, whether
inadvertent or not, the use of a test device or test method of any kind that adds operational
functionality to the upper (meaning functionality that enables, assists, or allows the upper to
fire a single shot when it could not do so by itself when manipulated as the designer intended)
results in a scientifically invalid test procedure. Obviously, the use of a test device or test
method that subtracts operational functionality from the upper also results in a scientifically
invalid test procedure. The person performing a test must also recognize that in instances of
testing with added operational functionality, the parts of a test device that are added or attached
to the upper may themselves be determined to be a firearm frame or receiver, a machine gun,
both of these simultaneously, or a machine gun conversion device, depending upon the specific
test device, the type of submitted upper under test, and the procedure employed.
For example, if a test device holds a standard MIO non-firearm upper in such a way as to
close the rear end of the upper, the test device captures the recoil spring and adds to the upper
the precise operational functionality that enables a single shot to be fired by pulling the cocking
handle of the upper to the rear. It is evident that in this case, the test device is a firearm frame or
receiver, no matter how simple or innocuous the test device appears to be when viewed in
isolation. The test result, showing that the standard MlO non-firearm upper is able to fire a single
shot in the absence of the M 10 lower receiver is quite clearly erroneous. In this instance it is
very easy to see that the test device provides to the upper the single most essential function of the
M 10 machine gun lower receiver, which is to close the rear end of the standard M 10 non-firearm
upper to allow the upper to fire a single shot. The test device itself is a firearm frame or receiver
when it holds a standard MIO non-firearm upper in the described manner. If the same test device
holds an MIO non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system, the test device is itself a
1166
RIF
16
machine gun, for it will add the operational functionality that enables the test device and nonfirearm upper as assembled to fire more that one shot when the cocking handle is pulled to the
rear and released.
E4) Two instructive examples of functionally equivalent uppers for the AR1S/Ml6 are the
Ares Defense Systems Shrike belt (and magazine) fed upper, and the BRP Guns XMG belt fed
upper. These two uppers have the same key operational features as the standard AR15/M 16 nonfirearm upper (closed bolt, moveable firing pin, hammer fired), and both uppers incorporate feed
systems that are absent in the host non-firearm upper that they replace. Both uppers are totally
incapable of firing a single shot in the absence of the AR15/Ml6 lower. The FTB classification
of the Shrike upper is unknown, but applying the methodology to classify machine gun uppers
shows that the Shrike is a non-firearm upper. Applying the methodology to the XMG belt fed
upper leads to the conclusion that the XMG is also a non-firearm upper, yet FTB has classified
the XMG upper as a firearm. Is this a correct classification? The methodology demonstrates that
the answer is unequivocally no.
One possible explanation for FTB's erroneous classification of the XMG upper lies in the
fact that the XMG upper, unlike the host ARIS /Ml6 upper, contains the recoil system in the
upper.
In addition, the rear end of the XMG upper is closed, while the rear end of the
AR15/Ml6 upper is open. Thus pulling back on the charging handle of the XMG upper will
cycle the bolt and bolt carrier through their normal range of operation, and even feed a round
into the chamber. Nevertheless, because the XMG upper is closed bolt, moveable firing pin, and
hammer fired, the XMG upper will not fire a single shot when separated from the ARIS /Ml6
lower receiver. Thus the XMG is functionally equivalent to the host AR1S/Ml6 upper, and the
placement of the recoil spring in the XMG upper and its closed rear end enabling tension on that
spring are of no functional significance in the determination that the XMG is a non-firearm
upper.
A second possible explanation for the erroneous classification of the XMG upper is that it is
designed to be very similar in appearance to the MG34 belt-fed machine gun. This point is
explored further in section F, part F4 of this report following a detailed examination of the
MG34.
ES) If a submitted upper has key operational features that are fundamentally different from
the host non-firearm upper, the submitted upper must be careful1y analyzed to arrive at a correct
classification. The key point of this analysis is to determine first whether the upper itself meets
the test of being a firearm, i.e. will the upper fire a single shot in the absence of the lower when
1167
RIF
17
the upper alone is manipulated as intended by the designer during normal operation of the
assembled firearm. If the upper is determined to be a non-firearm, either by analysis or by
appropriate testing of its ability to fire a single shot, the key operational features of the upper are
irrelevant, as are differences in feed systems and other features. On the other hand, if the upper
is determined to be a firearm because it is able to fire a single shot by itself, further analysis is
necessary to determine if it is also a machine gun.
E6) For example, consider a standard MIO upper that has been modified so that the rear
opening of the upper is closed. If this closed end upper is submitted for classification, the
methodology or a simple test would immediately ascertain that the closed end upper will by
itself fire a single shot when the bolt handle is pulled to the rear and released with a cartridge
loaded in the chamber. This occurs because when the bolt handle is pulled to the rear and
released, the recoil spring is compressed against the rear closure of the upper itself, thereby
enabling the bolt with its fixed firing pin to move forward under recoil spring tension and fire a
single cartridge placed in the chamber. Thus a closed end Ml 0 upper otherwise identical to a
standard Ml 0 non-firearm upper is correctly classified as a firearm. Because this closed end
upper also contains an opening in its bottom to admit the magazine normally held in the M 10
machine gun lower, the closed end upper is also correctly classified as a machine gun. For
obvious reasons, a closed end MIO upper that does not have the magazine opening in its bottom
would be a firearm but not a machine gun.
E7) When the methodology previously outlined is fully comprehended, the c1assification of a
submitted machine gun upper is a straightforward, rational, and scientifically based process that
will withstand scrutiny. It is important to note that as stated and emphasized previously, the
underlying assumption of this methodology for classifying machine gun uppers is that the host
machine gun lower is correctly classified as the regulated part, i.e. as the firearm frame or
receiver. This is unfortunately not always the case with existing BATFE classifications, as will
be demonstrated in the discussion of the next section. Moreover, in the case of a firearm of a
new or unfamiliar design, a classification of the firearm may have never been performed by FTB.
By employing the logical approach taken in the development of the methodology to classify
machine gun uppers, and making use of the interpretation of intent of the definition of firearm
frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 given in section D, the author has constructed a
methodology to identify the controlled part of any machine gun having a design that includes an
upper and a lower. This methodology to classify machine guns is described in the next section.
1168
RIF
18
This section describes a methodology that may be used to independently verify that the
identification of the firearm frame or receiver of a machine gun whose design consists of an
upper and lower is correct. It is presented here because a correct classification of a machine gun
upper using the methodology of the last section cannot be obtained if the firearm frame or
receiver of the machine gun is not correctly identified. This methodology to classify machine
guns relies on the interpretation of the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR
478.11 that is discussed in section D.
The steps in a classification procedure for a machine gun consisting of upper and lower are:
1) Determine whether the upper of the submitted machine gun is able to fire a single shot in the
absence of the lower. If the upper is able to fire a single shot in the absence of the lower, the
upper is a firearm, is the firearm frame or receiver, and is also a machine gun since the
assembled firearm is known to fire automatically. In some cases the upper that fires a single shot
in the absence of the lower will also fire automatically in the absence of the lower, thereby
demonstrating that the upper is indeed the machine gun. If the lower is able to fire in the
absence of the upper, the lower is the firearm, the firearm frame or receiver, and the machine
gun. If neither the upper nor the lower will fire a single shot in the absence of the other then
further steps are needed to identify which of the two is the firearm frame or receiver, hence is the
firearm and the machine gun.
2) Review the operational and design characteristics of the machine gun to identify the key
operational features of the machine gun that enable it to fire a single shot and determine where
those features are located with respect to the upper and the lower. Key operational features are
typically distributed within both the upper and lower, but it is typically not difficult to arrive at a
logical assignment of their location for the purpose of conducting the next step.
3) After a careful study of the key operational features and their locations, determine whether the
upper or lower contains the preponderance of key operational features that enable the assembled
upper and lower to function as a firearm, meaning specifically the ability to fire a single shot.
1169
RIF
19
4) Classify the component of the machine gun containing the preponderance of key operational
features as the firearm frame or receiver, the firearm, and the machine gun.
The remaining parts of this section provide examples and discussion to further explain the
methodology to classify machine guns.
Fl) To illustrate the thought process of this methodology, consider first the Ml6 machine
gun. The upper of an M16 cannot fire a single shot in the absence of the lower when manipulated
alone according to designer intent. We already know that the Ml6 upper itself can be correctly
classified as a non-firearm upper using the methodology to classify machine gun uppers of
section E, but our interest here is to classify the M 16 itself independently of that conclusion.
Looking at the M 16 lower, one initially comes to the same conclusion regarding the lower: it too
cannot fire a single shot on its own. This seems paradoxical, and may tempt the unwary to
conclude that focusing on the ability to fire a single shot is unwarranted. However, since the
upper typically contains the barrel, that focus provides a means of tentatively eliminating the
upper from consideration as the regulated part, and further discussion throughout this section
will hopefully demonstrate why this is helpful. Using the interpretation of the intent of the
definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478. l 1 as developed in section D, it is quite
clear that the preponderance of key operational features that enable the assembled M 16 upper
and lower to function together as a firearm, i.e. to fire a single shot, are provided in the lower.
One need only point to the presence of the hammer and the rest of the M 16 firing mechanism
other than the firing pin in the lower to support this contention.
Thus sound engineering
principles support a conclusion that the Ml6 lower is correctly classified as the firearm frame or
receiver, the firearm, and the machine gun. Once the Ml6 lower is correctly classified, we can
use the methodology to classify machine gun uppers of section E to classify the M 16 upper as a
non-firearm upper.
F2) Next consider the MIO machine gun. Because the MIO upper is open at the back, an MIO
upper will not fire despite being open bolt and having a fixed firing pin. This is because in the
absence of the lower there is no recoil spring tension to close the bolt and fire a cartridge placed
in the chamber. The MI 0 upper is therefore not itself a firearm, and by the same test, neither is
the MIO lower. However, the MIO lower is correctly classified as the firearm frame or receiver
because of the preponderance test. Note that in applying the preponderance test, it must first be
noted that in an open bolt firearm the recoil spring is a part of the firing mechanism. Secondly,
the recoil spring must have a fixed terminus to bear against in order to develop tension in the
1170
RIF
20
spring when the bolt moves to the rear. From an engineering perspective this fixed terminus
is a critical part of the firing mechanism and hence is a key operational feature of the MlO.
Although the recoil system of the M 10 resides partly in the lower and partly in the upper, the
fixed terminus is entirely in the lower, along with the other parts of the firing mechanism. Thus
the firing mechanism of the MIO is predominantly contained in the lower. It is clear that the
preponderance of key operational features of the MIO machine gun are located in the lower.
Thus the M 10 lower is correctly classified as the firearm, the firearm frame or receiver, and the
machine gun. With that fact established, the Ml 0 upper is easily classified as a non-firearm
upper using the methodology to classify machine gun uppers of section E.
The rear closure of the upper that is provided by the MIO lower, i.e. the fixed terminus for
the recoil spring, is absolutely necessary for an assembled Ml 0 to fire. Thus the location of the
fixed terminus in the M 10 lower is heavily weighted in the decision process that arrives at an
assignment of the preponderance of key operational features to the lower.
F3) For another instructive example, consider the MG34 and MG42 belt fed machine guns.
Both are open bolt, moveable firing pin, striker fired upon bolt entering battery, firearms. These
are the key operational features. The MG42 upper is a single housing that contains the barrel,
bolt, and recoil system. The MG34 upper, however, has a front portion that contains the barrel,
and a rear portion that contains the bolt and recoil system. These two upper portions can be
separated from one another, but that feature is irrelevant to the present discussion and we may
simply refer to the MG34 as having an upper rather than two uppers. (This closer look at the
MG34 design should reinforce the earlier argument that it is simply not possible to apply the
definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 in a literal way.)
The upper of each machine gun contains the bolt and recoil spring, but part of the firing
mechanism is contained in the lower (i.e. in the grip stick). With the respective lower removed,
the MG34 and MG42 each will fire a single shot placed in the chamber if the bolt is retracted
and released, hence the upper of each is a firearm and is correctly labeled by BATFE as the
regulated part i.e. as the firearm frame or receiver. The ability of these uppers to fire a single
shot is the critical factor in the classification process for these firearms, and the presence of parts
of the firing mechanism in the lower is of no significance. The fixed terminus of these two open
bolt firearms is in the upper. Since the uppers of the MG34 and MG42 will fire a single shot
when manipulated as the designer intended, the uppers of these machine guns are correctly
classified as firearms. There is no need for a preponderance test once the regulated part, i.e. the
firearm frame or receiver is clearly and unambiguously identified. That the MG34 and MG42
1171
RIF
21
uppers are also machine guns follows of course from the provision of a feed mechanism in their
respective uppers and the fact that they will fire continuously until the ammunition is exhausted
without the grip stick attached. The MG34 and MG42 lowers are non-fireann lowers.
F4) If we briefly reconsider the XMG belt fed upper discussed previously in section E, part
E4, we see that the above analysis of the MG34 is helpful in revealing that while the XMG upper
shares some of the features of the MG34, including the belt feed system, enclosed recoil system,
and two piece upper, and closely resembles the MG34 in outward appearance, the XMG upper is
fundamentally different in design and function from the MG34. The XMG upper will not fire as
the MG34 does in the absence of the corresponding lower. Thus the XMG upper is clearly a nonfirearm upper for the AR15/M16 as previously determined.
F5) Another worthwhile example of the use of the methodology to classify machine guns is
found in the Uzi submachine gun. The Uzi has an upper and lower, and roughly resembles a
MIO submachine gun in external appearance.
We previously determined in part F2 of this
section that the MIO lower is the firearm because the MlO upper is a non-firearm, and the MlO
lower contains the preponderance of key operational features.
At first glance it may seem
surprising to learn that the upper of the Uzi is correctly classified as the regulated part even
though the Uzi lower contains the greatest number of parts of the firing mechanism and hence
may plausibly pass the preponderance test. Is the classification of the UZI upper as the regulated
part correct? The answer is yes, and this example demonstrates why it is important to examine
the ability of the upper to fire a shot before applying a preponderance test.
In the absence of the lower, if the bolt of an Uzi upper is pulled back and released with a
single cartridge in the chamber, the upper will fire. The upper itself is therefore a firearm and
hence is immediately and correctly classified as the regulated part. There is no need to consider
the preponderance test. Note here that in testing the Uzi upper, we describe pulling the bolt back
rather than pulling the cocking handle back. This is deliberate. Later versions of the Uzi had a
ratcheting top cover as a safety mechanism. That ratchet would prevent the bolt from moving
forward when the cocking handle is released. This feature is of no consequence to the required
test, however, since the top cover is not part of the upper, and pulling the bolt back does produce
a manipulation of the firing action of the upper as intended by the designer.
Now, how are MIO and Uzi submachine gun uppers able to function so differently? The
answer is that the Uzi upper is closed at its rear, thereby providing a fixed terminus for the recoil
spring in the upper itself that allows the recoil spring to function to drive the bolt home in the
absence of the lower. In the MlO upper, the rear end of the upper is open and the recoil spring
1172
RIF
22
cannot function in the absence of the fixed tenninus provided by the lower. Thus in the Uzi
submachine gun the firearm frame or receiver is the upper, in the MIO submachine gun the
fireann frame or receiver is the lower.
F6) The methodology to classify machine guns easily identifies longstanding errors in the
BATFE classification of machine guns.
Consider the PPSh-41 submachine gun, a firearm
produced by the former Soviet Union in vast quantities nearly 70 years ago. The upper of the
PPSh-41 holds the barrel, and, interestingly, this is the only key operational feature that can be
assigned to the upper from an engineering perspective. The lower of this machine gun contains
the bolt, ejector, magazine housing, and recoil spring, provides the recoil spring with a fixed
tenninus, and provides a mount for the selective fire trigger group and stock. The upper cannot
fire a single shot in the absence of the lower, and the preponderance of key operational features
are unmistakably in the lower. Thus the lower receiver of the PPh-41 is a firearm, a firearm
frame or receiver, and a machine gun. BATFE classifies the upper of the PPSh-41 as the
firearm. Is this a correct classification? Engineering analysis shows that the answer is no, and
this incorrect classification appears impossible to defend by any test, engineering analysis,
logical process, or any reading of the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 4 78.11.
The most probable explanation for BATFE's incorrect classification is that the PPSh-41 'supper
happens to be where the Soviets stamped the firearm's serial number.
F7) As a final example that illustrates how an erroneous conclusion can be reached in the
absence of careful engineering analysis and a comprehensive methodology to classify machine
guns, consider the RPD belt-fed machine gun. This machine gun is open bolt, with a moveable
firing pin that is struck as the bolt enters battery. The recoil spring, its fixed terminus, and the
fire control mechanism of the RPD are entirely in the lower. BATFE classifies the RPD upper as
the firearm, most likely because that is where the serial number is located. Is this a correct
classification? Applying the methodology to classify machine guns, we quickly and easily
establish that the RPD upper cannot fire a single round in the absence of the lower when
manipulated as the designer intended. The reason for this is that the RPD recoil spring and its
fixed terminus are contained in the lower. Pulling the bolt back on an RPD upper in the absence
of the lower does not result in any forward motion of the bolt upon release. Therefore the RPD
upper is a non-firearm upper, and it is quite clear that the preponderance of key operational
features that enable the assembled upper and lower of an RPD to function as a firearm are in the
lower. Thus there is no doubt that the RPD lower is a firearm frame or receiver, a firearm, and a
machine gun.
1173
RIF
23
F8) In the introduction to section E, it was pointed out that it is impossible to have a valid
procedure for classifying machine gun uppers unless one has correctly identified the regulated
part of the host machine gun. The examples and discussion of this section demonstrate that the
methodology to classify machine guns can accomplish this important task. When employed
together, the two comprehensive methodologies, namely, the methodology to classify
machine gun uppers and the methodology to classify machine guns provide a scientifically
rigorous classification process for machine gun uppers and for machine guns themselves.

In this section, the methodology to classify machine gun uppers (section E) is applied
specifically to the Model 54 RCCS. As a reminder, this methodology does not rely in any way
on the interpretation of the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 that is
discussed in section D.
Consequently the findings of the classification of the Model
54RCCS in this section do not depend on that interpretation.
Step 1) Determine the make and model of the machine gun for which the submitted upper is
intended: The Model 54RCCS is an upper for the MI 0 machine gun. The host machine gun,
namely the Ml 0, consists of a non-firearm upper and the BATFE regulated machine gun lower
receiver. The firearm frame or receiver of the MIO is the MIO machine gun lower. These are
correct cJassifications by BATFE of the M 10 upper and lower as can be independently verified
by an application of the two methodologies presented in this report.
Step 2) Next determine the key operational features of the host machine gun as related
specifically to the function of firing a single cartridge The M 10 machine gun is an open bolt,
fixed firing pin design in which the bolt is driven forward by the recoil spring. The fixed
terminus for the recoil spring is in the M 10 lower.
Step 3) After careful study of the design of the upper submitted for classification. and of its
operation when assembled to the machine gun host lower. determine whether the submitted
upper is identical. functionaJly equivalent, or functionalJy non-equivalent to the non-firearm host
upper:
The Model 54RCCS is a gas operated upper for the MIO machine gun in caliber
7 .62x54R. The upper employs a rectangular housing that mounts a belt feed system, barrel and
1174
RIF
24
gas system, and contains the bolt, bolt carrier, recoil spring, and recoil buffer. The firing pin is
fixed to the bolt carrier and moves forward to strike the primer after the bolt enters battery. The
Model 54RCCS is open at its rear and must be attached to the MIO machine gun lower receiver
for the recoil spring to be put in tension. The fixed terminus for the Model 54RCCS recoil spring
is in the Ml 0 lower receiver.
Comparing the key operational features of the Model 54RCCS to those of the host Mto nonfirearm upper reveals one minor difference. While both uppers are open bolt, the Model 54RCCS
employs a firing pin fixed to the bolt carrier. The MIO host upper employs a firing pin fixed to
the bolt. The bolts of both uppers are driven forward by the recoil spring to fire a cartridge. Both
uppers rely on the fixed terminus for the recoil spring provided by the Ml 0 machine gun lower
receiver. Other features of the two uppers that are not key operational features are that the
Model 54RCCS employs belt feed while the MIO host upper employs magazine feed to provide
cartridges for successive shots. The Model 54 RCCS is gas operated after the first shot, the M 10
is recoil operated after the first shot.
An examination of the Model 54RCCS shows that it relies on the energy stored in the recoil
spring to fire a single shot. The bolt and bolt carrier of the Model 54RCCS translate within a
rectangular housing that also contains the recoil spring and recoil buffer. Since the rear of the
Model 54RCCS is open, it is not possible for the Model 54RCCS to fire when it is separated
from the MIO lower and manipulated as the designer intended. This is because the opening at
the rear of the Model 54RCCS makes it impossible to develop the required tension in the recoil
spring to close the bolt or activate the moveable firing pin. The absence of a fixed terminus in
the upper is a design feature shared by the Model 54RCCS and all other known MIO non-firearm
uppers. The MIO lower contains the fixed terminus for the recoil spring of the Model 54RCCS.
Thus an engineering analysis demonstrates that the Model 54RCCS cannot fire a single
shot in the absence of the MIO machine gun lower.
The inability of the Model 54RCCS to fire a single shot in the absence of the MIO lower was
demonstrated as part of the testing co-witnessed by BATFE, Historic Arms, and this author on
6110109 in Coweta, Georgia. On that occasion an attempt was made to cause the Model 54RCCS
to fire a round from a belt of ammunition in the absence of the M 10 machine gun lower. This
attempt did not result in a shot being fired nor in any forward movement whatsoever of the bolt
carrier or bolt. This was due to the inability to develop tension in the recoil spring after the
charging handle was pulled to the rear. Pulling the charging handle to the rear and releasing it
simply caused the recoil spring and buffer of the Model 54RCCS to protrude from the rear of the
1175
RIF
25
device and along with the bolt, bolt carrier, and firing pin, subsequently remain at rest. The
testing confirms the previous finding that the Model 54RCCS is unable to fire a single shot in
the absence of the host MlO machine gun lower.
The engineering analysis described earlier shows that the Model 54RCCS is not an identical
upper to the MIO non-firearm upper in that its key operational features do differ in a minor way
from those of the host MIO non-firearm upper. However, the examination does show that the
Model 54RCCS is a functionally equivalent upper for the MIO machine gun in that it will not
fire a single shot in the absence of the MIO lower. Thus the Model 54RCCS is functionally
equivalent to the host MlO non-firearm upper.
Step 4) If the submitted upper is identical to, or functionally equivalent to, the non-firearm host
upper, the correct classification of the submitted upper is that it is a non-firearm upper.
Based upon the methodology to classify machine gun uppers, the Model 54RCCS is
functionally equivalent to the host MlO non-firearm upper, thus the correct classification
of the Model 54RCCS is that it is a non-firearm upper for the MIO machine gun. The
Model 54RCCS is therefore not a firearm frame or receiver, it is not a short barreled rifle,
and it is not a machine gun.

This report would be incomplete if it failed to examine the FTB test device itself as well as
the test procedure employed by FTB to arrive at their finding that the Model 54RCCS is a
machine gun. This section will demonstrate that the FTB test device consisting of a chain,
turnbuckle, and plate used by FTB during the testing on 4/ 15/09, and during the co-witnessed
testing by FTB and Historic Arms on 6/10/09, both in Coweta, Georgia, is the source of that
erroneous finding. The engineering analysis that arrives at this conclusion is confirmed by the
co-witnessed testing on 6/10/09, as well as by additional testing using the FTB test device
conducted by Historic Arms on 6/10/09 and witnessed by this author, and testing conducted by
the author on 6/24/09.
This section will first show that the FTB test device is itself 1) a firearm frame or receiver
when that test device is attached to a standard MI 0 non-firearm upper, and 2) a firearm frame or
receiver and machine gun when that test device is attached to any MIO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm
upper that has an integral feed system.
1176
RIF
26
Beginning with the first statement above, observation shows that when the test device is
attached to the standard MIO upper, it encloses the upper in such a way that the FTB test device
closes the opening at the rear of the upper and allows the recoil spring within the upper to be put
in a state of compression when the cocking handle is pulled to the rear. Stated in engineering
terms, when the test device is attached to the standard MI 0 upper, it provides a fixed terminus
for the recoil spring contained in the upper. In doing so, the test device exactly duplicates the
most critical function of the MI 0 machine gun lower receiver, which is also to provide a fixed
terminus for the recoil spring contained in the upper. With the FTB test device attached to a
standard MI 0 non-firearm upper, the upper will fire a single shot if a cartridge is placed in the
chamber and the operating handle pulled to the rear. Therefore, from an engineering perspective,
when the FTB test device is attached to a standard MIO non-firearm upper, the test device is
itself a firearm frame or receiver since it functions as a simple but effective replacement for the
MlO machine gun lower receiver.
In this configuration the FTB test device satisfies the
definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 4 78. I I in exactly the same manner that the
M 10 machine gun lower receiver satisfies this definition. However, the FTB test device is not a
machine gun because the assembly consisting of the test device attached to a standard M 10 nonfirearm upper is only able to fire a single shot without manual reloading.
A first test conducted by Historic Arms on 6/10/09 using the FTB test device consisted of
attaching the FTB test device to a standard MIO non-firearm upper, loading a single 45 ACP
cartridge in the chamber, and pulling the operating handle to the rear. The assembly consisting of
the test device attached to a standard MIO non-firearm upper fired one shot, confirming the
finding of the engineering analysis described above. Thus the FTB test device is itself a
firearm frame or receiver when it is attached to a standard MlO non-firearm upper.
As to the second statement earlier, that the FTB test device is itself a firearm frame or
receiver and a machine gun when it is attached to any MIO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that has
an integral feed system, observation shows that the FTB test device encloses any MIO or Ml I/9
non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system in such a way that when the test device is the
attached to the upper, the test device closes the opening at the rear end of all of these uppers
thereby allowing tension to be developed in their respective recoil spring. That is, the FTB test
device provides a fixed terminus for the recoil spring contained in these uppers. With the test
device attac:;hed to any of these uppers, the upper will fire a single shot if a cartridge is placed in
the chamber and the operating handle pulled to the rear. Therefore, when attached to any of these
uppers, the test device is itself a firearm frame or receiver since it functions as a simple but
1177
RIF
27
effective replacement for the respective Ml 0 or M 1119 lower receiver. In this configuration the
FTB test device satisfies the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 4 78.11 in exactly
the same manner that the M 10 machine gun lower receiver satisfies this definition. Additionally,
any MIO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system to which the FTB test
device is attached will fire repeatedly if the feed system is loaded with ammunition and the
charging handle pulled to the rear and released. Therefore, from an engineering perspective,
when attached to any MlO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system, the FTB
test device is itself a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun since it functions as a simple
but effective replacement for the respective MIO or Ml 119 machine gun lower receiver in
enabling fully automatic fire.
A second test conducted by Historic Arms on 6/10/09 consisted of attaching the FTB test
device to a Fleming SubCal Ml 1/9 caliber conversion upper having an integral magazine feed
system. This upper is correctly classified by the methodology to classify machine gun uppers
and BATFE as a non-firearm upper. After inserting a magazine containing multiple 22 Long
Rifle cartridges into the magazine well of the upper, the operating handle was pulled to the rear.
The assembly consisting of the test device attached to the SubCal upper fired repeatedly until the
magazine was empty, confirming the finding of the engineering analysis described above.
Although the SubCal upper was the only upper tested by Historic Arms on 6/ 10/09, we may infer
with certainty that the FTB test device will operate as a machine gun when attached to any other
MIO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed device. Thus the FTB test device is
itself a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun when it is attached to any Ml 0 or
Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that bas an integral feed system.

The first two findings of this section show that the FTB test device consisting of a chain,
turnbuckle, and plate adds an extraordinary level of added operational functionality to any M 10
or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper to which it is attached. In fact, from an engineering perspective,
there is no doubt whatsoever that the FTB test device is designed to provide an extraordinary
level of added operational functionality to any MIO non-firearm upper to which it is
attached. The added operational functionality provided by the FTB test device is, of course, to
supply a fixed terminus for the recoil spring by closing the opening at the rear of the non-firearm
upper. It is this opening on all MIO non-firearm uppers, including the Model 54RCCS, that
prevents them from firing a single shot in the absence of the MIO machine gun lower.
It is vitally important at this juncture to recall that in discussing the methodology to classify
machine gun uppers, a warning was given in section E, part E3, that
1178
RIF
28
the use of a test device or test method of any kind that adds operational functionality to the
upper (meaningfimctionality that enables, assists, or allows the upper to fire a single shot when
it could not do so by itself when manipulated as the designer intended) is a scientifically invalid
test procedure.
In light of the findings of this section with regard to the standard MIO non-fireann upper and
the Ml 1/9 SubCal non-fireann upper, there can be no doubt that when attached to these uppers
the FTB test device provides such an extraordinary level of added operational functionality, i.e.
the fixed tenninus, that any ensuing claim that either of these uppers is itself a firearm, a fireann
frame or receiver, or a machine gun is completely erroneous.
If we now examine the assembly consisting of the FTB test device attached to the Model
54RCCS, observation shows that the test device encloses the Model 54RCCS in such a way that
it closes the opening at the rear end of the Model 54RCCS thereby allowing tension to be
developed in the latter's recoil spring. That is, the FTB test device provides a fixed tenninus for
the recoil spring contained in the Model 54RCCS. This analysis is confinned by the cowitnessed testing on 6/ 10/09.
In one co-witnessed test, an attempt was made to cause the Model 54RCCS to fire a round
from a belt of ammunition by itself. As expected, this attempt did not result in a shot being fired
nor in any movement whatsoever of the bolt carrier or bolt of the Model 54RCCS due to the
inability to develop tension in the recoil spring after the charging handle was pulled to the rear.
Pulling the charging handle to the rear and releasing it simply caused the recoil spring and buffer
of the Model 54RCCS to protrude from the rear of the device and subsequently remain there at
rest. This test confinns that the Model 54RCCS will not fire at all in the absence of a fixed
terminus for its recoil spring.
In a 4/ 15/09 test, the Model 54 RCCS was attached to a MIO machine gun lower receiver
that had been stripped of all fire control parts. A short belt of ammunition was loaded into the
Model 54RCCS and the cocking handle pulled to the rear and released. As designed, the Model
54RCCS fired more than one shot in this arrangement. The fact that this occurred is not
surprising, as the stripped Ml 0 lower receiver contains the fixed tenninus that is required by the
Model 54RCCS in order to fire. In a simple test conducted by the author on 6/24/09 in
Thomasville, NC, a standard MIO non-firearm upper was attached to a stripped MIO machine
gun lower receiver, a magazine of ammunition was inserted into the MIO lower, and the cocking
1179
RIF
29
handle pulled to the rear. The MIO non-firearm upper fired repeatedly until the ammunition was
exhausted. In both tests, that with the Model 54RCCS and that with the standard M 10 nonfirearm upper, the sole function of the Ml 0 lower receiver is to supply the fixed terminus which
all MIO uppers require in order to fire singly or repeatedly. In analyzing these tests, we must
recall that all uppers for the MIO machine gun must logically be able to fire repeatedly when
attached to the Ml 0 machine gun lower receiver. The fact that the Model 54RCCS has this
capability should not surprise. The above analysis and 4/15/09 and 6/10/09 tests of the Model
54RCCS demonstrate conclusively that the Model 54RCCS cannot fire singly or repeatedly
unless it is attached to an Ml 0 machine gun lower or to some other device that specifically
provides the required fixed terminus for the recoil spring of the Model 54RCCS.
In a second co-witnessed test, the FTB test device was attached to the Model 54RCCS, a
short belt of ammunition was loaded, and the operating handle was pulled to the rear. As
expected, the Model 54RCCS fired more than once. This co-witnessed test demonstrates
conclusively that the FTB test device does indeed provide the critically important fixed terminus
needed to enable the Model 54RCCS to fire single or repeatedly.
From the above engineering analysis, the analyses with respect to the standard MIO nonfirearm upper and Mll/9 SubCal non-firearm upper, and from the finding that the FTB test
device is designed to add a fixed terminus to any MIO upper, including the Model 54RCCS, it is
evident that any claim that the Model 54RCCS is itself a firearm, a firearm frame or
receiver, or a machine gun that is based upon the use of the FTB test device is the outcome
of a scientifically invalid test procedure.
It should be noted that this last finding does not depend in any way upon agreement or lack
of agreement with the finding of section G that the Model 54RCCS is an Ml 0 non-firearm upper,
nor on agreement or lack of agreement with the findings that the FTB test device is itself a
firearm frame or receiver and/or machine gun in the configurations described earlier in this
section. The finding with regard to a scientifically invalid test procedure depends solely on the
fact that we are able to demonstrate that the test procedure employs a test device that adds
operational functionality to the device to which it is attached. Indeed, there can be no doubt that
the FTB test device provides an extraordinary level of added operational functionality to all M 10
uppers by providing a fixed terminus for their recoil springs.
In reviewing the analysis and testing discussed previously in this section, it is evident that
from an engineering perspective, the FTB test device and the stripped MlO machine gun lower
receiver are functionally identical devices when attached to the Model 54RCCS.
1180
In this
RIF
30
configuration the FTB test device satisfies the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR
478.11 in exactly the same manner that the stripped MIO machine gun lower receiver satisfies
this definition. Therefore, when attached to the Model 54RCCS, the FTB test device functions
as a simple but effective replacement for the MIO machine gun lower receiver in enabling fully
automatic fire. Thus the FTB test device is a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun
when it is attached to the Model 54RCCS.
The principle findings of this report as developed in sections B, C, and G with regard to the
Model 54RCCS are, 1) that the Mode] 54RCCS is not a firearm in and of itself, 2) that the Model
54RCCS is not a firearm frame or receiver, and 3) that the Model 54RCCS is a non-firearm
upper for the MIO machine gun that is functionalJy equivalent to the standard MIO non-firearm
upper. These three findings are the result of engineering analysis and testing in sections B and
C, and they are also arrived at independently by applying the methodology to classify machine
gun uppers to the Model 54RCCS as described in section G of this report. These findings do not
depend in any way on the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 4 78.11, nor on the
interpretation of the intent of that definition as given in section D, because we know a priori that
the MIO lower receiver is the firearm frame or receiver. For this reason, the three findings do
not depend or derive from the methodology to classify machine guns described in section F, as
this methodology is not needed to classify the MIO machine gun. Lastly, these three findings in
regard to the Model 54RCCS do not in any way depend on or rely on the findings in section H
with regard to the FTB test device and test procedure.
The principle findings of section H with regard to the FTB test device are 4) that the FTB test
device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver when attached
to a standard MIO non-firearm upper, 5) that the FTB test device consisting of a chain,
turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun when attached to any
MIO or Ml 119 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system, 6) that the FTB test device
consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is designed to provide an extraordinary level of
added operational functionality to any MIO non-firearm upper, 7) that any claim that the Model
54RCCS is itself a firearm, a firearm frame or receiver, or a machine gun that is based upon the
use of the FTB test device is the outcome of a scientifically invalid test procedure, and 8) that the
FTB test device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver and a
machine gun when attached to the Model 54RCCS.
1181
RIF
31
These findings also deserve brief comment. None of these findings with regard to the FTB
test device depend in any way on agreement with the findings with regard to the Model 54RCCS.
While there may be disagreement over the specific legal characterization of the FTB test device
in findings 4, 5, and 8, there can be no disagreement among engineers or anyone else familiar
with the design of mechanical devices over finding 6, which relates to how the FTB test device is
designed to function, and does function when it is attached to the cited uppers. Lastly, for an
engineer, in regards to finding 7, it is hard to imagine a more badly flawed test procedure than
that created by attaching the FTB test device to the Model 54RCCS.
The classification of the Model 54RCCS upper by FTB as a machine gun is simply incorrect.
It should come as no surprise that absent a comprehensive methodology, FTB's reliance upon the
use of ad-hoc classification procedures, upon appearance, and upon the inadvertent or advertent
use of a test device that provides an extraordinary level of added operational functionality to any
Ml 0 upper results in an erroneous conclusion.
1182
RIF
CMPArmorv
(b) (6)
14June 2009
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Dear (b) (6)
On 10 June 2009 at the Coweta County Firing Range I inspected one Historic Arms 54RCCS. It is
my opinion that the device in question is just that a device. It is no more a firearm than the original
upper that comes on a M10.
With the addition of one length of chain, turnbuckle and metal plate as demonstrated by the
(ATF) any MlO upper in any caliber would fire as demonstrated. It is my opinion that trying to fire the
54RCCS in this manor is very dangerous. There is no way to safely control the device. If while trying to
fire the device the conversion device (chain, tension bolt, metal plate) could move, slip internal parts
could eject themselves from the upper device at high speed causing injury.
During the inspection of the 54RCCS device measurements of the device were compared to a
Voltor semi-auto receiver and an original PKM GPM. The device in appearance as well measure is
consistent with a semi-auto not a full-auto. It is also my opinion that the device produced by Historic
Arms was derived from a semi-auto receiver. The dimensions of the left rail are the same as a semi
auto PKM but much larger than an automatic PKM GPM. The stamping itself is identical to a semi-auto.
During examination of a Flemming .22 caliber conversion made for the Mac and previously
approved by the ATF the Flemming caliber conversion preformed the same as the 54RCCS did with the
addition of the ATF's conversion parts (chain, tension bolt, metal plate) as a "machinegun". Without the
1183
RIP
parts provided by the ATF the Flemming caliber conversion also preformed the same as the 54RCCS it
did nothing.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
Owner, CMP Armory
2411 Rhyne Rd
Dallas, NC. 28034
(b) (6)
1184
RIP
Case 1:08-cv-00136-TCW
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 1 of 21
No. 08-136C
(Judge Wheeler)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
WILLIAM AKINS,
Plaintiff,
V.
THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.
MOTION TO DISMISS
JEFFREYS. BUCHOLTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General
JEANNE E. DAVIDSON
Director
MARK A. MELNICK
Assistant Director
Of COUNSEL:
MELISSA ANDERSON
ATF Office of Chief Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Deputy Associate Chief Counsel
(Litigation)
May 2, 2008
MICHAEL N. O'CONNELL
Trial Attorney
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
1100 L St., N.W., 8th floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 353-1618
Fax: (202) 514-8624
Attorneys for Defendant
1185
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 2 of 21
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM ................................................ I

QUESTIONS PRESENTED...................................................... I
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................... 2
I.
Nature Of The Case................................................. 2
II.
Statement Of Facts ................................................. 2
ARGUMENT.................................................................. 5
I.
II.
Standards Of Review................................................ 5
A.
RCFC 12(b)(l)............................................... 5
B.
RCFC l2(b)(6) ............................................... 5
To The Extent That This Court Possesses Jurisdiction, Mr. Akins'

Claims Fail As A Matter Of Law .................... .. .. . .... . ..... . .. 6
A.
This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review ATF's Machinegun

Classification.. . . . . .. .... .. ........ ... . ... ................... 8
B.
ATF's Classification Of The Akins Accelerator As A

Machinegun Is Not A Public Use Of Private Property
That Requires Compensation . . ... . .... . ........ . .. . ... .. . . ... . . 9
C.
Mr. Akins Did Not Possess An Ownership Interest In The

Machineguns That Could Be Taken By The Government ... . ...... . . 11
D.
This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review Mr. Akins' Due

Process Claitn .... . ......... . .... . ... . ........ . ........... . .. 13
E.
This Court Does Not Possess Jurisdiction To Issue The Types Of

Declaratory Judgments And Injunctions That Mr. Akins Seeks .. .. .... 14
CONCLUSION ... . ............. . ... . ... . ..... . ... . ... . .................. . .... 15
1186
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 3 of 21
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Acadia Technology, Inc. v. United States,
458 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 11
American Pelagic Fishing Co., L.P. v. United States,
379 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Amerisource Corp. v. United States,
Slip op. (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2008) ........................................ 6, 7, 9
Bell Atlantic Coro. v. Twombly,
127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Crocker v. United States,
125 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1997).......................................... 8, 13
Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.,
114 F.Supp. 643, 645 (D. Hawaii 1953) ........ ... ...... ... ........ ... .... . ... 6
Ferreiro v. United States,
350 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............ . ..... .. ........ ... . . .... .. .... .. . 5
Fisher v. United States,
402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .... . ... . ..... .. .... .. ......... . ........ . .... 6
Greenlee County, Ariz. v. United States,
487 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6
Hendler v. United States,
952 F.2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............ . ............... .. ............... 12
Holley v. United States,
124 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . .. . ... . ..... . ..... . .......... . ...... . .... .. 5
Houston v. United States,
60 Fed. Cl. 507 (2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
International Industrial Park. lnc. v. United States,
80 Fed. Cl. 522 (2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
-ii-
1187
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 4 of 21
Kanemoto v. Reno,
41 F.3d641 (Fed. Cir. 1994).............................................. 14
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
544 U.S. 528 (2005)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council,
505 U.S. 1003 (1992) ..................................................... 7
M & 1 Coal Co. v. United States,
47 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1995).............................................. 7
Maritrans Inc. v. United States,
342 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................. 6
Miller v. United States,
67 Fed. Cl. 195 (2005)................................................... 14
Mitchell Anns, Inc. v. United States,
7 F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993).. . ......... . .... ... .... .. .......... .. .. . 11, 12, 13
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City,
438 U.S. 104 (1978) .. . .... . ...... . . . ... .. .... ... ........ . ......... . .. 6, 7, 8
Redford v. Dept. of Treasury,
691 F.2d471 (lOthCir.1982)... . .... . ............ . ......... . ...... . ...... 11
Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States,
247 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . .. . ....... . . .. ...... . ......... .. ......... .. 7
Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States,
270 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001)...... . . . ..... .. ..... .. ......... .. ..... . ... .. 9
Seay v. United States,
61 Fed. Cl. 32 (2004) .. .... .. .......... . ..... . ........ .. ....... ... ....... . 9
United States v. King,
395 U.S . 1 (1969).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1188
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 5 of 21
STATUTES
S U.S.C. 701-706 ........................................................... 4
18 U.S.C. Chapter 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(23) .......................................................... 3
18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(28)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
18 u.s.c. 922(0)....................................................... 2, 10, 13
18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
26 U.S.C. Chapter 53.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 10
26
u.s.c. 5822. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
u.s.c. 5845 ...........................................................
26
u.s.c. 5845(b) .... . ...................................... .. ....... .. ....
2,3, 4
2, 3
28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(l)......................................... .. ........ . .... 10

28 U.S.C. 149l(b)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
28 C.F.R. 0 .130... .. ..... . .. . ............. . .... . .. . .. . ... . ..... . ....... .. ... 11
U.S. Const. amend. V, cl. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
-IV-
1189
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 6 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

WILLIAM AKINS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
)
)
)
)
)
THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant.
No. 08-136C
(Judge Wheeler)
MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(l) and (6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal
Claims ("RCFC"), defendant respectfully submits this motion to dismiss.
DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1.
Whether this Court possesses jurisdiction to review agency decisions pursuant to
the Administrative Procedure Act.

2.
Whether this Court must assume that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives acted lawfully in classifying the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun.

3.
Whether ATF acted pursuant to its police power in requiring Akins Group to
register the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun and barring it from selling the Akins Accelerator
to anyone other than law enforcement agencies.
4.
Whether Akins Group possessed an ownership interest in the Akins Accelerator
protected by the Fifth Amendment.
5.
Whether this Court possesses jurisdiction to declare statutes unconstitutional.
6.
Whether this Court possesses jurisdiction to consider due process claims.
1190
RIF
7.
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 7 of 21
Whether this Court can issue injunctions in matters other than bid protests.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J.
Nature Of The Case

Plaintiff, William Akins, asserts a Fifth Amendment takings claim and seeks a
declaratory judgment that the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives ("ATF") in classifying the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun, and prohibiting Akins
Group, Inc., from selling it to anyone other than law enforcement agencies, was arbitrary,
capricious, without factual support and contrary to law, as well as an injunction prohibiting ATF
from treating the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun. In the alternative, he seeks a declaration
that 18 U.S.C. 922(0) is unconstitutional on its face, and as applied to Mr. Akins. Finally, he
also seeks a determination that ATF failed to provide him with due process.
U.
Statement Of Facts
Mr. Akins is the successor-in-interest to Akins Group, Inc. ("Akins Group"), which
owned a patent to a device known as the Akins Accelerator. Complaint ("Co.") iMJ 4, 6. This
device, when added to a semi-automatic rifle, "increase[s] the cyclic rate at which the trigger ...
can be actuated to discharge the weapon." Co.~ 6. 1 After obtaining the patent for the Akins
Accelerator, Akins Group submitted the Akins Accelerator to A TF for a determination as to
whether ATF would consider the device a machinegun pursuant to the National Firearms Act
("NFA"), 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). Co. ii&. Section 5845(b) of the NFA provides:
Congress has defined a semi-automatic rifle as "any repeating rifle which utilizes a
portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next
round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge." 18 U.S.C.
92l(a)(28).
-2-
1191
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 8 of 21
Machinegun.--The term "machinegun" means any weapon which

shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,
single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame
or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended
solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and
intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and
any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control
of a person.
lnitially, in 2003, ATF determined that the Akins Accelerator was not a machinegun. Co. T! 15,
19. Thereafter, Akins Group began producing and selling the Akins Accelerator. Co., 23.
By letter dated November 22, 2006, ATF reversed its earlier ruling. Co. , 24 and Exhibit
("Ex.") H. ln the 2006 ruling, ATF noted that the definition of a machinegun contained in
5845(b) included not only a weapon which shoots automatically more than one shot, but also
conversion parts "designed and intended to convert a weapon into a machinegun, i.e., a weapon
that shoots automatically more than one shot." Co., Ex.Hat 2. ATF found that live fire testing
ofa Ruger 10/22 rifle with the Akins Accelerator attached "demonstrated that a single pull of the
trigger initiates an automatic firing cycle that continues until the finger is released, the weapon
malfunctions, or the ammunition supply is exhausted." Id. Accordingly, ATF held that the
Akins Accelerator must be considered a machinegun pursuant to the National Firearms Act and
the Gun Control Act. 2 _!fl at 2-3.
Pursuant to this ruling, Akins Group was required to pay applicable taxes and register the
machineguns in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 5822 and Title 27 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, or surrender them to the nearest ATF office. Co., Ex.Hat 3. Section 479.105(c) of
The Gun Control Act of 1968 adopts the definition of machinegun contained in the
National Firearms Act. See 18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(23).
-3-
1192
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 9 of 21
Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations allows for registration ofmachineguns "conditioned
upon and restricted to the sale or distribution of such weapons for the official use of Federal,
State or local governmental entities." Thus, ATF's ruling also prohibited Akins Group from
selling the Akins Accelerator to anyone other than Federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies. Co., Ex.Hat 3.
On December 13, 2006, ATF issued ATF Ruling 2006-2. Co., Ex. I. The ruling stated
that ATF had been asked by several members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are
exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic fireann. Id. at 1. ATF
explained that these devices "once activated by a single pull of the trigger, initiate an automatic
firing cycle which continues until either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is
exhausted." Id. ATF held that these devices are a part "designed and intended solely and
exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a
machinegun" as stated in the NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845. Id. ATF held that these devices are
machineguns for purposes of the NFA, 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, and the Gun Control Act of 1968,
18 U.S.C. Chapter 44. Id.
Akins Group requested that ATf reconsider its decision on February 6, 2007. Co., Ex. J.
ATF denied the reconsideration request on September 24, 2007. Co., Ex. K.
This lawsuit followed. To the knowledge of the undersigned counsel, Akins Group has
not challenged ATF's ruling in a district court pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 u.s.c. 701-706.
-4-
1193
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 10 of 21
ARGUMENT
I.
Standards Of Review
A.
RCFC 12(b)(l)
In deciding a RCFC 12(b)( 1) motion, "determination of jurisdiction starts with the

complaint, which must be well-pleaded in that it must state the necessary elements of the
plaintifrs claim, independent of any defense that may be interposed." Holley v. United States,
124 F.3d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). When this Court's subject matter
jurisdiction is placed into issue, the non-moving party bears the burden of establishing
jurisdiction. International Industrial Park, Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 522, 526 (2008).
"Where a motion to dismiss challenges the truth of the jurisdictional facts alleged in the
complaint, the court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may consider all relevant
evidence in order to resolve the factual dispute." Id. (citing Ferreira v. United States, 350 F.3d
1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
B.
RCFC 12(b)(6)
The Tucker Act both confers jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims and waives the
sovereign immunity of the United States for claims for money damages founded on, inter alia,
acts of Congress. Greenlee County, Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d 871, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
However, "[t]he Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive cause of action; in order to come
within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a
separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages." Id. (quoting Fisher
v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ~bane in relevant part)).
-5-
1194
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 11 of 21
There are two different grounds upon which the Government may file a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim in a Tucker Act case: 1) failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted due to lack of a money-mandating source; and 2) failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted because the plaintiff is ultimately not entitled to recover money damages
under the statute. Greenlee, 487 F.3d at 876 (quoting Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1172-73).
As the Supreme Court recently explained in Bell Atlantic Com. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 1965 (2007), the factual allegations pied in the complaint must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level. Thus, "when the factual allegations in a complaint, however
true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, '"this basic deficiency should ... be exposed
at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court."' Id. at
1966 (quoting 5 Wright & Miller 1216 at 233-34 (quoting Daves v. Hawaiian Dredging Co.,
114 F.Supp. 643, 645 (D. Hawaii 1953))).
II.
To The Extent That This Court Possesses Jurisdiction,

Mr. Akins' Claims Fail As A Matter Of Law
The Fifth Amendment provides, in pertinent part: "nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const. amend. V, cl. 4. "The language of this
clause does not prohibit the government from taking private property altogether; rather, it
prohibits the government 'from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all
fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."' Maritrans Inc. v. United States,
342 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City,
438 U.S. 104, 123 (1978)). The "clause does not entitle all aggrieved owners to recompense,
only those whose property has been 'taken for a public use."' Amerisource Corp. v. United
1195
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 12 of 21
States, slip op. at 6 (Fed. Cir. May I, 2008). For example, "[p]roperty seized and retained
pursuant to the police power is not taken for a 'public use' in the context of the Takings Clause."
Id. at 7.
The Federal Circuit has developed a two-part test to evaluate claims that a Governmental
action constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation. Id. (citing M & J Coal
Co. v. United States, 47 F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (Fed. Cir. 1995). First, the Court must determine
whether a protected property interest existed, that is, whether the property interest "was a 'stick
in the bundle of property rights' acquired by the owner." M & J Coal, 47 F.3d at 1154 (quoting
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1027 (1992)). Second, ifthe claimant
can establish the existence of such an interest, the Court must then determine whether the
Governmental action at issue constituted a compensable taking of that "stick." Id.
In determining whether any compensable taking occurred, "it is important to decide at the
outset whether the alleged taking was 'categorical' or not." American Pelagic Fishing Co., L.P.
v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Rith Energy, Inc. v. United States,
247 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (on rehearing)). The Supreme Court has explained that
there are two types of categorical takings. First, when the Government causes the owner to suffer
a permanent physical invasion of its property - no matter how small - the owner is entitled to just
compensation. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A .. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538 (2005). Second, when
Governmental regulations "completely deprive an owner of 'all economically beneficial us[e]' of
her property," the owner is also entitled to just compensation. Id. (quoting Lucas, 505 U.S. at
1019 (emphasis in original)).
-7-
1196
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 13 of 21
"Outside these two relatively narrow categories ... regulatory takings challenges are
governed by the standards set forth in Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104,
... ( 1978)." Id. In Penn Central, the Supreme Court acknowledged that it has been unable to
identify any set formula for evaluating regulatory takings claims, but identified three factors of
primary importance: (I) the character of the Governmental action, (ii) the economic impact of the
action on the claimant, and (iii) the extent to which the action interfered with the claimant's
reasonable investment-backed expectations. Id. at 539. Each of these inquiries "aims to identify
regulatory actions that are functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government
directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain." Id. Thus, each of the
"tests focuses directly upon the severity of the burden that government imposes upon private
property rights." Id.
A.
This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review ATF's Machinegun Classification
In his complaint, Mr. Akins seeks both judicial review of ATF's classification of the
Akins Accelerator as a machinegun, and an award of just compensation pursuant to the Fifth
Amendment. However, he cannot seekjudicial review of ATF's classification in this Court
because only district courts possess jurisdiction pursuant to the APA to review agency decisions.
Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("the [Court of Federal Claims]
correctly held that it lacks the general federal question jurisdiction of the district courts, which
would allow it to review the agency's actions and to grant relief pursuant to the Administrative
Procedure Act. .. "). Rather, the analysis in this Court must start from the premise that ATF
correctly classified the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun.
As the Federal Circuit has explained:
-8-
1197
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 14 of 21
[I]n a takings case we assume that the underlying action was lawful
and we decide only whether the governmental action in question
constituted a taking for which compensation must be paid. [The
appellant's] complaints about the wrongfulness of the [government
action] are therefore not properly presented in the context of its
takings claim. The only question before us is whether [the
appellant) was entitled to be compensated for the effects of that
action.
Acadia Technology. Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Rith
Energy, Inc. v. United States, 270 F.3d 1347, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (on petition for
rehearing));~ also
Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. United States, 7 F.3d 212, 215 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(identifying the issue upon review as "whether the presumptively correct actions of ATF in
suspending and revoking the permits constituted a compensable taking under the Fifth
Amendment."). Thus, Mr. Akins' complaints about the wrongfulness of ATF's actions have no
place in this action. The Court must assume that ATF acted in a lawful manner. The only issue
properly before the Court is whether ATF's actions are compensable pursuant to the Fifth
Amendment.
B.
ATF's Classification Of The Akins Accelerator As A Machinegun Is Not A

Public Use Of Private Property That Requires Compensation
As the Federal Circuit noted in Acadia, after the Court starts from the assumption that the
agency acted lawfully, the Court then must determine if the agency's actions are "the sort of
'public use' of private property for which the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires
compensation." Acadia, 458 F.3d at 1331. In Acadia, the Federal Circuit held that '"items
properly seized by the government under its police power are not seized for 'public use' within
the meaning of the Fifth Amendment"' and, therefore, a plaintiff whose property has been seized
-9-
1198
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 15 of 21
in such circumstances is not entitled to compensation. Id. at 1332 (quoting Seay v. United States,
61 Fed. Cl. 32, 35 (2004)); Amerisource, slip op. at 6-7.
In this case, Mr. Akins does not allege that ATF took the Akins Accelerators so that ATF
would have machineguns for its own use. Rather, he concedes that ATF was acting pursuant to,
among other statutes, 18 U.S.C. 922(0), which, with limited exceptions not relevant here, bans
the possession or transfer of machine guns. Co. iMI 1, 21, 25, 39. Exhibit B to the complaint
demonstrates that, by requesting a ruling, Mr. Akins himself commenced the process which
ultimately resulted in ATF classifying the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2), persons who knowingly violate the provisions of
18 U.S.C. 922(0), "shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years,
or both." Once A TF ruled that the Akins Accelerator was a machinegun, Akins Group and Mr.
Akins (see
Co.~
32 concerning his personal possession of four Akins Accelerators) were
arguably in violation of a criminal statute, but the record demonstrates that ATF, given the
circumstances, provided Akins Group time to register or surrender the devices. ln prohibiting
Akins Group from possessing or transferring machineguns pursuant to 922( o ), ATF acted
pursuant to this Congressional ban on the possession and transfer of machineguns.
A TF has been granted authority by Congress to investigate "criminal and regulatory
violations of the Federal firearms ... laws." 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(l). Pursuant to Department of
Justice regulations, ATF, among other things, possesses authority to:
(a) Investigate, administer, and enforce the laws related to alcohol, tobacco,
firearms, explosives, and arson, and perform other duties as assigned by the
Attorney General, including exercising the functions and powers of the Attorney
General under the following provisions of law:
1199
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 16 of 21
(1) 18 U.S.C. chapters ... 44 (related to firearms) ... ;

(2) Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. chapter
53 (related to certain fireanns and destructive devices);
28 C.F.R. 0.130. Thus, when ATF required Akins Group to register or surrender the Akins
Accelerator and banned it from selling them to anyone other than law enforcement agencies, ATF
was acting pursuant to the police power conferred by Congress and the Attorney General and did
not seize the property for public use pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. Acadia, 458 F.3d 1327,
1331-33; Redford v. Dept. of Treasury, 691 F.2d 471, 473 (lO'h Cir. 1982) (appellant's "firearms
were seized and declared forfeited [by ATF] pursuant to statutory and administrative regulations;
therefore the government need not compensate him."). As such, Mr. Akins is not entitled to
compensation pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.
C.
Mr. Akins Did Not Possess An Ownership Interest In The Machineguns That
Could Be Taken By The Government
A plaintiff cannot assert a takings claim against the Government when it has voluntarily
entered into an area subject to pervasive Government control. Mitchell Anns, Inc. v. United
States, 7 F.3d 212, 216 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In Mitchell Arms, the plaintiff obtained pennits from
ATF to import assault rifles into the United States. Id. at 213-14. ATF subsequently issued a
news release announcing the suspension of pending applications for a P.,ennit. Id. at 214.
Following this announcement, Mitchell Anns contacted ATF and was told it could rely upon its
issued pennits. Id. Mitchell Anns then confinned an order of assault rifles with its foreign
supplier, which required Mitchell Anns to obtain an irrevocable letter of credit. Id. Soon
thereafter, ATF suspended the importation of assault rifles. Id. After the assault rifles arrived at
port facilities, the United States Customs Service refused entry for lack of a valid import pennit.
-11-
1200
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 17 of 21
Id. ATF later banned further importation of assault rifles. Id. Mitchell Arms then filed suit in
this Court, alleging that the suspension and revocation of its import permit constituted a
compensable taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 215. The Court dismissed the
complaint and Mitchell Arms appealed to the Federal Circuit. Id.
At the court of appeals, Mitchell Arms argued that ATF took either its firearms or its
permits. It argued that it entered into a contract with its foreign supplier in reliance upon the
issued permits, which gave rise to a reasonable investment-backed expectation protected by the
Fifth Amendment. Id. The Federal Circuit rejected these arguments and affirmed this Court's
decision.
The court of appeals explained that the "chief and one of the most valuable characteristics
of the bundle of rights commonly called 'property' is 'the right to sole and exclusive possession the right to exclude strangers, or for that matter friends, but especially the Government.'"
Mitchell Arms, 7 F.3d at 215 (quoting Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
1991 )). The court held "'that enforceable rights sufficient to support a taking claim against the
United States cannot arise in an area voluntarily entered into and one which, from the start, is
subject to pervasive Government control."' Id. at 216 (quoting Mitchell Arms. Inc. v. United
States, 26 Cl. Ct. 1, 5 ( 1992)). The court explained that the reason "'enforceable rights sufficient
to support a taking claim' cannot arise in such an area is that when a citizen voluntarily enters
such an area, the citizen cannot be said to possess 'the right to exclude."' Id. (quoting Hendler v.
United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The "reason the citizen cannot be said to
possess 'the right to exclude' is that the citizen is in an area subject to government control." Id.
When Mitchell Arms voluntarily entered into the firearms import business, it "knowingly
-12-
1201
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 18 of 21
plac[ed] itselfin the governmentally controlled arena of firearms importation under the Gun
Control Act. ..." Id. Thus, the Federal Circuit held that the expectation by Mitchell Arms that it
could sell assault rifles in the United States was not a property interest protected by the Fifth
Amendment. Id.
The facts in this case are on point with Mitchell Arms but weigh even more strongly in
favor of the Government. Mr. Akins does not allege that at any time relevant to this action that
he or Akins Group was entitled to possess and/or transfer unregistered machineguns. Thus, Mr.
Akins would have known when he was creating the Akins Accelerator and when he obtained his
patent in 2000 (Co.~ 6) that, if ATF determined that the Akins Accelerator was a machinegun,
Akins Group would not be able to possess any Akins Accelerators without registering them as
machineguns and paying the applicable tax, and it would not be able to sell them to anyone other
than law enforcement agencies. Just as the plaintiff in Mitchell Arms "knowingly plac[ed] itself
in the governmentally controlled arena of firearms importation under the Gun Control Act. ... "
(Mitchell Arms, 7 F.3d at 216), Mr. Akins knowingly placed himself in the Governmentally
controlled arena of machinegun manufacturing and sales. Akins Group could not have possessed
the right to exclude the Government from this business. Thus, like the plaintiff in Mitchell
Arms, Akins Group did not possess a property right protected by the Fifth Amendment and Mr.
Akins, therefore, is owed no compensation.
D.
This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review Mr. Akins' Due Process Claim
In count three of his complaint, Mr. Akins alleges that ATF violated his due process
rights. However, as the Federal Circuit has held, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment
-13
1202
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 19 of 21
does not obligate the Government to pay money damages and cannot serve as a basis for
jurisdiction in this Court. Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
E.
This Court Does Not Possess Jurisdiction To Issue

The Types Of Declaratory Judgments And Injunctions That Mr. Akins Seeks
In paragraph one, the introduction to his complaint, Mr. Akins requests that the Court
declare 18 U.S.C. 922(0) unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Mr. Akins, "with an
appropriate injunction." In the body of his complaint, Mr. Akins does not elaborate upon any
facts that he alleges demonstrate why this statute is unconstitutional, nor does he use the word
unconstitutional. In his demand for relief on page 7 of the complaint, he seeks a declaration that
the Akins Accelerator is not a machinegun and requests an injunction prohibiting ATF from
treating the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun.
In United States v. King, 395 U.S. I, 5 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the Court of
Claims did not possess declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Although Congress has since provided
this Court with limited jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments, such as in bid protest actions
(28 U.S.C. 149l(b)(2)), the Supreme Court's holding in King otherwise remains valid
precedent.
y., Houston v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 507, 510 (2004).
Similarly, although the
Court may issue injunctions in bid protest actions, the Court does not otherwise possess
jurisdiction to issue injunctions. Kanemoto v. Reno, 41 F.3d 641, 644-45 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Likewise, the Court does not possess jurisdiction to declare statutes unconstitutional. Miller v.
United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 195, 199 (2005) (citing King, 395 U.S. at 5).
- 14-
1203
RIF
Case 1:08-cv-OO136-TCW
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 20 of 21
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss
plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or failure to state a claim.
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General
JEANNE E. DAVIDSON
Director
s/ Mark A. Melnick
MARK A. MELNICK
Assistant Director
OF COUNSEL:
MELISSA ANDERSON
ATF Office of Chief Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Deputy Associate Chief Counsel
(Litigation)
May 2, 2008
s/ Michael N. O'Connell
MICHAEL N. O'CONNELL
Trial Attorney
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
1100 L St., N.W., 8th floor
Tel: (202) 353-1618
Fax: (202) 514-8624
Attorneys for Defendant
1204
RIF
Document 5
Filed 05/02/2008
Page 21 of 21
I certify under penalty of perjury that on this 2nd day of May, 2008, a copy of the
foregoing "DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS" was filed electronically. I understand that
notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system.
Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.
sf Michael N. O'Connell
1205
RIF

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs .
1:09-CV-0192-GET
SYSTEM" MACHINEGUN, SERIAL NO. V1,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CLAIMANT HISTORIC ARMS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff files this response to Claimant's Motion for Summary

Judgment.
Claimant's motion must be denied because Claimant has
failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that
it
is
entitled to summary judgment.
Burden of Proof
Claimant has failed to show that it is entitled to summary

judgment.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party
establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Carlin Communications, Inc. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 802
F.2d 1352, 1356 {11th Cir. 1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56{c).
Further,
the court must view all evidence and inferences to be drawn from it
1206
RIF
'
14.:..
in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
Property involved in a violation of the NFA is subject to

seizure and forfeiture to the United States.
26 U.S.C. 5872(a).
The provisions of the Customs Laws (Title 19, U.S.C.

govern
the
seizure,
summary
and
judicial
1602-1618}
forfeiture,
condemnation of property by ATF for violations of the NFA. 1
u.s.c.
and
See 18
3051(c) (l} . 2
With the passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act

of 2000 ("CAFRA"), Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202 (2000),
Congress mandated a fundamental change in the government's
initial burden of proof in most civil judicial forfeiture actions
that were commenced on or after the statute's effective date of
August 23, 2000.
In many forfeiture actions under Federal law
the government now bears the burden of first establishing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that defendant property is subject
to forfeiture.
See 18 U.S.C. 983(c) (1). However, the
provisions of CAFRA do not apply to any civil forfeiture action
commenced under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, such as the
present case. See 18 U. S.C. 983 {i} {2} {B}; 26 U.S.C. 5872 (a) .
2
Section 305l(c} (1), enacted as part of the Homeland

Security Act of 2002, provides:
(1)
Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), and
except to the extent that such provisions conflict with the
provisions of section 983 of title 18, United States Code,
insofar as section 983 applies, the provisions of the
Customs laws relating to(A)
(B)
(C)
(D}
the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture,

and condemnation of property;
the disposition of such property;
the remissions or mitigation of such
forfeiture; and
the compromise of claims,
2
1207
RIF
Once the government establishes probable cause, the claimant

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was
not related to a violation of federal law.
U.S. v.
$242.484 at 1160; U.S. v.
Carrell,
19
u.s.c.
1615; See
252 F.3d 1193, 1201
(11th Cir. 2001) (discussing pre-CAFRA forfeiture in the context of

a narcotics case) .
If the claimant offers such evidence,
the
government may offer \\probative admissible evidence to contest the

claimant's proof."
United States v. $129.727.00 U.S. Currency, 129
F . 3d 486, 492 (9th Cir. 1997) .

When the evidence in the present case is viewed in a light
most favorable to Plaintiff, it is clear that Claimant has failed
to rebut,
by a preponderance of the evidence,
the government's
showing that the property was related to a violation of federal

law.
As set forth below (and in Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment), the Defendant Historic Arms 54RCCS vl (the "Defendant")

was properly classified a machinegun under the National Firearms
Act
( \\NFA") ,
26 U.S . C.
Chapter 53,
by the Bureaus of Alcohol,
shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged

to have been incurred, under any applicable provision of law
enforced or administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives.
Section 3051's predecessor statute, 31 U.S.C. 9703(0) (repealed
by the Homeland Security Act Of 2002), similarly provided that
the Customs Laws governed all seizures and forfeitures by ATF.
1208
RIF
Tobacco,
{"ATF")
and was not properly
registered by Claimant as required by law.

ARGUMENT
Claimant's
argument
classified must fail.
that
the
Defendant
was
improperly
Claimant's arguments are legal in nature;
there are no material facts in dispute in this case .
The parties
agree on what the Defendant is and how it functions.
Claimant is
urging the Court to act as a Monday morning quarterback and secondguess the ATF's application of the NFA to Defendant .
Claimant
provides
no
compelling
classification should be disturbed;
reason
that
However,
ATF's
the
Claimant merely espouses a
difference in opinion with the ATF's classification.

Plaintiff will
either
under
the
show that
relevant
Claimant's motion can be denied
law
or
by
examining
the
flaws
in
Claimant's application of the NFA to Defendant.

I.
Claimant Fails to Show that the Classification of

Defendant Was Arbitary and Capricious
Claimant states that ATF's classification of Defendant was

arbitrary and capricious, but relies primarily on classifications
of devices other than the Defendant in making its argument.
This
argument fails because the Eleventh Circuit has recently held that
the ATF has
the power
to
"'reconsider and rectify'"
what
it
considered to be a classification error. Akins v. United States,
1209
RIF
312 Fed. Appx. 197 (11th Cir. 2009) 3 (en bane) (quoting Gun South v.
Brady, 877 F . 2d 858, 862-63 (11th Cir. 1989).
In March 2002,
William Akins
submitted a
device named the "Akins Accelerator" to FTB .
prototype of
FTB tested Akins '
prototype and determined that it was not a "machinegun" under the

NFA.
Akins,
at 198.
In November 2006, ATF noticed the Akins
Accerlator advertised on a
addition,
several
regarding Akins'
website as
individuals
"approved"
contacted
ATF
by ATF.
with
In
questions
device and similar devices were submitted for
classification.
Because
of
these
events,
ATF
re-opened
the
classification and, after further evaluation of a production model,

advised Akins that his device had been reclassified as a machinegun
and that the prior classification was deemed "overruled." Id. at
199 .
The re-classification occurred in December 2006, nearly five
years
after
the
ATF
had
issued
its
original
non-firearms
classification of a prototype of the Akins Accelerator, and after

appellant
William
Akins
had
mass-produced
distributed the Akins Accelerator.
and
commercially
Akins at 198-199 .
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's granting of
An extensive discussion of Akins can be found in

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment, Doc . 43, Exhibit 2, pp. 9-11.
1210
RIF
summary judgment in favor of the United States.
In doing so, the
court set forth the deferential standard by which it would review

ATF's classification of the Akins Accelerator:
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, we defer to the
decision of the Bureau unless it 11 (1) exceeds the
Bureau's
statutory
authority,
(2)
violates
a
constitutional right, or (3) constitutes an 1 arbitrary 1
or 'capricious action, ' or 'an abuse of discretion' or an
action 'otherwise not in accordance with law. 1 11 Based on
that deferential standard, we "cannot substitute our
judgment for the Bureau's judgment, but rather, we must
presume" that the actions of the government agency are
11
valid[.] 11
Id. at 200 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Gun South, Inc. v.
Brady, 877 F . 2d 858, 861 (11th Cir. 1989)).
The court held that
ATF acted within its discretion when it classified Akins' device

and that ATF's decision to reconsider its 2002 classification was
not arbitrary and capricious.
Akins at 200.
In addition, though Akins did not claim that ATF was acting
outside of
its
statutory authority,
the
court
noted
that
the
classification was made pursuant to the powers delegated to ATF by

Congress to interpret the NFA .
Id. at 198.
The relevance of Akins to the present case could not be more

clear, 4 nor could the contrasts be more telling.
In Akins, the ATF
It is particularly curious that Claimant did not so much

as cite Akins in its Motion for Summary Judgment, as not only is
Akins arguably the most relevant binding precedent available, but
appellant William Akins was represented by John R. Monroe, lead
counsel for Claimant in this case.
6
1211
RIF
reversed its prior ruling on the exact device upon which it had
ruled some four years prior.
In the present case, Claimant is
asking the Court to look at ATF' s
classifications of different
devices to overturn the classification of the Defendant.
ATF is free
to
"reconsider and rectify"
device at a
later date,
If the
classification of a
it may clearly classify a
new device
differently from some other device, even if that other device bears
some similarity to the Defendant.
Further, it is worth noting that in Akins, the court upheld
the re-classification even though William Akins had relied upon the
initial classification in producing, manufacturing and distributing
his device for commercial sale,
and once the re-classification
occurred,
turn
Akins
was
forced
to
over
all
copies
Accelerator in his possession, ending commercial sales.
of
the
I!!.:.. at
199.
The present case compares favorably to Akins in this regard,

as Claimant states that the Defendant is the only copy of the
HA54RCCS ever built.
Doc. 14, Claimant's Responses to Plaintiff's
Interrogatories, no. 15 (attached as Exhibit 1).

states that
Claimant further
he submits his creations to ATF to "make sure there
will be no regulatory issues with them."

Material Facts, , 9.
Claimant's Statement of
Thus, unlike William Akins, Claimant cannot
claim reliance on a prior ATF classification because there was no
1212
RIF
prior classification.
Further, Claimant cannot deny knowing that
there was a possibility that ATF would render a

adverse
to his
commercial
classification
interests because he has
had prior
disagreements with ATF classifications of his devices.
Savage
Depo., p. 58, lines 9-15.

Claimant's reliance on other ATF classifications also fails
because those involved in the heavily-regulated firearms industry
knowingly expose themselves to the risk of adverse administrative
rulings.
Mitchell Arms v. United States,
Cir. 1993).
7 F.3d 212, 216
(Fed.
Even where the economic effect of those rulings is
detrimental, there is no right to compensation, particularly where

the affected party has evinced a knowledge of the regulatory scheme
and its potential pitfalls.
619,
624
(Ct.
Claimant's
Akins v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl.
2008) 5
Cl.
president,
who
Thus,
states
it
in
reasonably
,
of
his
follows
that
Statement of
Material Facts that he is aware of the potential for "regulatory

issues"
with
his
designs,
must
have
known when
he
submitted
Defendant to ATF that there was a distinct possibility that the ATF
would
classify
the
Defendant
as
machinegun.
Any
reliance
Prior to filing his case in the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Florida (which gave rise to the
Eleventh Circuit opinion) , William Akins sought relief in the
Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims granted the
United States' motion to dismiss Akins' case.
1213
RIF
Claimant may have placed on the classifications of the Suomi,

Calico or Fleming rulings was misplaced.
Akins does not stand alone.
the
Supreme
Court
down,
has
A long line of precedent, from
found
that
"[a] n
interpretation is not instantly carved in stone

to
engage
in
interpretations
basis."
informed
and
the
rulemaking,
wisdom of
must
initial
. . [an] agency,
consider
its policy on
varying
continuing
Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
837, 863-4
agency
467 U . S.
(1984); see also Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Assn. v. State
Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983) (recognizing that agencies must be able
to adapt their rules and policies to the circumstances).
Thus, the
law is clear that prior agency decisions do not bind the agency in
making subsequent decisions.
The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that an agency may reverse
a prior regulatory decisions in other contexts.
For instance, in
BellSouth Telecomms. v . MCimetro Access, 425 F.3d 964. 970 (11th

Cir. 2005), the issue was the Federal Communication Commission's
unilateral change in its regulatory scheme, but in the context of
the present case, it is another example of the deference given to
agency decisions, even where that decision is reversal of course.
When compared to the facts in Akins, which were less favorable
to the government, there is simply no reasonable argument that the
classification of Defendant was arbitrary and capricious.
Thus,
1214
RIF
-- - -
~--
-----------
..
Claimant has failed to show that it is entitled to summary judgment

and its motion must be denied for this reason.
10
1215
RIF
tt-
(b) (6)
J.~~-\ .
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103

~
.....
April ]5, 2003
Bureau of Alcohol. Tobacco, and F'trcarms

Technology Branch
Washington DC 20226
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
All cm: bu bceri taken to prohibit the instlhtion of the orisinal RPD Fire Contro1 pans.
ko modification arc made to the SWO ,M-IJ 9MM.bost ~~exception of ooo .l75
diamdcr bole bc:q drilled through the rear plato to aBaw fur tho op rod iDsertion (similar
to the ..slow fire'" conversion for the M11). The butt stt>Ck ~ CANN9T ~
attachcdtotfl9uppcrwilboPt a SWDM-Jl 9MM~-bcinguSedutha"MA1N
rccelVl!r mltloB componeat:
- .
".; ' J '
.....
,'I
1'
(b) (6)
~-
1216
RIP
.t
~.;.
DEPARTMEHTOFTHETREASURY
OUREAU OF ALCOHOL. TOBACCO AND l"IREARMS
DOZ t l AON
9030SO:(b) (6)
3311/2003- 435
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
......
Cear
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
..
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
,,
Aa defined in Nstiona1 Firea.rms Act {!WA). per 26
u.s.c. sed:ion 5845 (b), the t~ .Q,a~~negun" means
any weapoii which shoots, is desi~ to~Bhoot, or can
~,
. ...,,~
...
...4
..... --:
:.t
.
....:ff
...
J
..
-.AT,,.Taii:AS.aov
1217
RIP
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
be readily restored to shoot automatically more than

one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
The term shall also include
the frame or recei-ver of any such weapon, any part
designed and in~eneiecl -solely and exclusively~ or
combinatioQ of par~s , deeigned f~ which a ma.chinegun
can be assembled ' if such parts are in possession or
under the control of a person.
Since the su.bmitt~ sample has been determine&. to be a

machinegun and ie not :reghtered in acco:cdanee with
NFA provisions# we ~:re um!>le to return it unti:l:-J-yo\t
complete
en ATF FO:l:m 2,
NOtice Of Firearms
,.,
'
Manufactured or lQilOrte'ci.
Please provide our B~an~ with instructions ccncern:ig
disposition of the .J.~M~thin 60 days, or it will ht!

considered abandoned ~ v~ll be ~~ed of in
accordance with the ;nee88

,.
. - of the Government.
~
1218
RIP
-3(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
We thank you for your sample and regret that the

foregoing could net have been more favorable to your
inquiry.
Sincerely yours,
.t
Chief,
~1 ~ ..j,
..
~;
..,
.-
...
.1
,..
r.'
..,
'
it. , ~ ..
I
; :'
, .....
~
'l ..j
.,
l,
~I
.t
..
1~ ' '
,,...,
_.,
t"
..
.-,. .
..
.... -
-'
:.i.;,~
1219
RIP
--,... .
( --

FEB - I 2005
www.:itf.~D\'
903050:(b) (6)
331112005-028
(b) (6)
Dear (b) (6)
This is in reply to your correspondence dated June 14. 2004, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF), concerning the production of a clone of an Ml 1 upper receiver
Your correspondence, which includes a
previously manufactured by a(b) (6)
drawing. pictures, and a "letter of approval," dated March 13, 2003, from ATF's Firearms
was forwarded to FfB at its new location in
Technology Branch (FTB) to (b) (6)
Martinsburg. WV.
In your enclosed drawing, you depict an unmodified lower receiver and a new upper receiver.
The proposed new upper receiver will extend in front of the original receiver and will contain a
mount for a 71-round Suomi drum magazine. You will use the original bolt and barrel for this
project. The SWD-typc machinegun receiver will not be changed.
Assuming that you lawfully own a SWD Ml 1/9 type machinegun, you should be aware that ATF
has previously determined that a semiautomatic variant of a machinegun, which (1) fires from
the open bolt position, and (2) employs a fixed firing pin, is a ''machinegun" as defined in the
National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C., Section 5845(b). Therefore, assembly of this type of
weapon would be a violation of the NFA.
Based on an evaluation of the description provided, FTB finds that your proposed modifications
to a registered machinegun would not be prolu"bited under the provisions of either the Gun
Control Act of 1968 (GCA) or the NFA.
A magazine housing from an original Suomi sub-machinegun could be used provided that you do
not make or possess a new machinegun receiver.

Any other modifications that result in making or possessing a new machinegun receiver would
be unlawful. You should be aware that changing the lower receiver in any way could result in
the manufacture of a new machinegun, which is prohibited under the GCA (18 U.S.C. Chapter
44). Further, the NFA (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53) prohibits tampering with the serial number in any
1220
RIP
. 1
DEPARTMENTOFTHETREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO ANO FIREARMS
903050: (b) (6)

3311/2003-268
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
MAR 1 3 2003
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103

Dear
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
This is in reply to your letter, with submitted

drawings, concerning the modification of a registered
machinegun that you own. You ask whether you can make
a new upper receiver and attach it to your registered
machinegun.
You enclosed a drawing showing changes you would like
to make to your registered SWD Mll/9 submachinegun,
serial number (b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103 You propose to make a new
upper receiver, which will extend in front of the
original receiver and will contain a mount for a 71
round Suomi drum magazine. The original bolt and
barrel will be used. The SWD machinegun receiver will
not be changed.
Based on the desc~iption provided, the proposed
modifications to your registered macninegun would not
be prohibited under the provisions of the Gun Control
Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act. A magazine
housing from an original Suomi submachinegun could be
used provided that you do not make or possess a new
machinegun receiver.
Any other modifications, which result in making or
possessing a new machinegun receiver, would be
unlawful. You should be aware that changing the lower
receiver in any manner could result in the manufacture
www.ATF.TREAS.GOV
1221
RIP
-2-
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
of a new machineglln, which is prohibited under Title

18, United States Code (U.S . C.), Chapter 44. Further,
Title 26, U.S.C . , Chapter 53 prohibits tampering with
the serial number in any manner. Title 26, U.S.C.,
section 586l(g) states, it shall be unlawful for any
.person to obliterate, remove, change, or alter the
serial number or other identification of a firearm
required by this chapter.
- - . .......,._. . -
We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to

your inquiry. If we can be of !illY further assistance,
please contact us.
~
Sincerely yours,
\j
(__
~~
Curtis H.A. Bartlett

--
--- -
- - - - ---------- - -
1222
------
RIP
,._
.
1223
-.
....
RIF
....

Frrearms and Explosives
Martinsburg, WV
25401
www.atf.gov
903050:RV
3311/2007-076
NOV 03 2006
Mr. Len Savage
President
Historic Arms, LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Dear Mr. Savage:
This is in response to your inquiry to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding whether FTB intends to reclassify
your design of an Ml 0- or Ml I-type upper receiver modified to accept a Calico-type helical
magazine.
Our Branch issued a classification of this modification in our June 7, 2005, letter to you (please
refer to #331112005-440). We found that, apart from feeding from a Calico magazine, the design
features of the original Ml O/Ml I had not changed significantly. Therefore, the FTB
classification provided in #2005-440 will not be re-evaluated.
We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact us if we can be of any
further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
~u.
~ Sterling Nixon
?7-zf'
1224
RIF

903050:RDC
331112005-440
JUN - 7 2005
V.'WW.llf.gov
Mr. Len Savage

President
Historic Arms LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Franklin, GA 30217
Dear Mr. Savage:
This refers to your letter of May 25, 2005, to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding the legality of modifying an MIOor Ml I-type upper receiver to accept a Calico-type helical magazine.
As you are aware, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(3), defines the term
"firearm" to include the following:
... (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily
converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (BJ the frame or receiver of any
such weapon; (CJ any firearm mujjler or silencer; or (DJ any destructive device. Such term does
not include an antique firearm.
Further, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a), defines "firearm" as... (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels ofless than 18 inches in length, (2) a weapon made
from a shotgun ifsuch weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a
barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less
than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a n'jle ifsuch weapon as modified has an
overall length ofless than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5)
any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e), (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 921); and (8) a destructive device. The term "firearm" shall not include an antique
firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed
as a weapon, the ... [U.S. Attorney General} ... finds by reason ofthe date of its manufacture,
value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used
asa weapon.
1225
RIF
-2-
Mr. Len Savage

Based on the FTB evaluation of the submitted drawing, it appears that the proposed
Ml O/Ml 1-type upper receiver assembly will be redesigned to accommodate a Calico helical
magazine mounted atop the receiver. In addition, you state the firearm's original semiautomatic
function will not be altered.
The upper receiver of an Ml O/Ml 1 type :firearm does not constitute the frame or receiver of a
fireann, as that term is defined in 27 CFR Section 478.11(formerly178.11). Based on the
information provided, the manufacture of a modified MIO/Ml I-type upper receiver that is
redesigned to accept a Calico helical magazine doeS' not constitute the manufacture of a frame or
receiver of a :firearm. The proposed upper receiver is not subject to either 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44
(the GCA) or 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53 (the NFA).
This determination is relevant to the item as proposed. Any alterations or modifications to the
design would subject the item to further review.
further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
S:l{
Sterling Nixon
1226
RIF

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco.
MAR 2 1 Z005
903050:(b) (6)
331112005-257
-.;,-w.:uf.gov
(b) (6)
Dear (b)
(6)
This refers to your correspondence of February 16, 2005, to the Fireanns Technology Branch
(FTB}, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding the legality of
manufacturing an extended upper receiver assembly, capable of accommodating a Suomi
71-round drum magazine for the purposes of attachment to your registered M-11/NINEmm 9mm
sub-machinegun.
.-.
As you may be aware, the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defines the
term "firearm" to include" ... (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily
converted to expel a projectile by the action ofan explosive: (BJ the frame or receiver of any
such weapon; (C) any fireann mujJler or silencer; or (DJ any destructive device. Such tenn does
not include an antique fireami."
Also, the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a), defines "firearm" as follows:
" ... (I) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels ofless than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made
from a shotgun ifsuch weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a
barrel or barrels ofless than 18 inchei in length; (3)a ri;1e having a barrel or barrels oj less
than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle ifsuch weapon as modified has an
overall length ofless than 26 inches or a banel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5)
any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 921); and (8) a destructive device. 171e tenn 'fireami 'shall not include an antique
firearm or any device (other than a machinegu11 or destructive device) which, although designed
as a weapon, the ...[u.S. Attorney General} finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value,
design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a
weapon."
From the submitted photographs and drawing, it appears that the proposed upper receiver
assembly is an elongated version of an original M-11/NINEmm-type upper receiver. The
submitted photographs depict an extended rectangular-shaped upper receiver incorporating an
1227
RIP
(b) (6)
M-11/NINEmm-type barrel and bolt assembly. The unique design of the magazine well and
latch mechanism, located forward of the forward takedo'Wll pin, allows the attachment of a
71-round drum magazine for a Finnish Suomi sub-machinegun.
Based on the information provide~ FTB finds that the manufacture of an extended
M-11/NINEmm-type upper receiver does not constitute the manufacture of a frame or receiver of
a firearm. The proposed upper receiver is not subject to either the GCA or the NFA. This
determination is relevant to the item as proposed. Any alterations or modifications to the design
would subject the proposed receiver assembly to further review.
We thank you for your inquiry and trust that the foregoing has been responsive.
Sincerely yours,
t/~
(b) (6)
S
Cruel, Firearms Technology Branch
1228
RIP
:i-
II
II
...
'
)~:~~~ l
j
. I'
I
'
{' i _,/
'i{
1229
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 1 of 15

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
No. 1:09-CV-00192-GET

)
)
SYSTEM" MACHINE GUN, SERIAL NO. VI, )
)
DefundanL
CLAIMANT'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
~ CJaimant Historic Arms, LLC, is a Special (Occupational) Taxpayer

("SOT") and Federal Firearms Licensee ("FFL"). Second Deel. of Lennis
Savage,~
3.
v2. In those capacities, CJaimant is permitted under federal law to manufacture

and sell firearms and NFA firearms (including machineguns). 26 U.S.C.
5851, 5852, 5861 .
Because machineguns manufactured since May 19, 1986 are banned for
general citizen ownership [18 U.S.C. 922(0); 27 U.S.C. 479.105], the
owner of a "pre-ban" machinegun _h5! an incentive to make his existing
.machinegun as versatile as possible. 2"d Savage Deel.,~ 4.
~ For
that reason, it is popular among machinegun owners to equip the
machineguns with caliber conversion devices, so that the machineguns may

be used to shoot a variety of ammunition calibers.
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1230
For example, the

l l P;.ig.l!
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 2 of 15
"MAC" type machinegun, originally made for .380 ACP, 9 mm and .45
ACP (i.e., "pistol caliber") ammunition, could, through the use of a caliber
conversion device, shoot rifle calibers as well. Id.,
if 5.
/ 5. On or about April 21, 2008, Lennis Savage, President of Claimant,

completed the manufacture of Defendant. Id., if 6.
(
6. The purpose of Defendant is to act as a caliber conversion device for the

owner of a MAC type machinegun. Id.,
if 7.
7. When installed on a MAC machinegun, Defendant converts the caliber of

the MAC to 7.62X54R, a rifle cartridge commonly used in many former
Eastern Bloc firearms and for which surplus ammunition is readily
available. Id., if 8.
8. While working on Defendant, Savage was in contact with the Bureau of
NMf=
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") Firearms Technology

Branch ("FTB") personnel. Id., if 9.
J Savage, an experienced manufacture and designer of many firearm systems

and components, submits most of his inventions to FTB for classification
to make sure there will be no regulatory issues with them. Id., if 10.
IO.During Savage's discussions with John Spencer, Chief of the FTB, Spencer
expressed concern that Claimant was making a caliber conversion device
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1231
2 P.ig.i..:
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 3of15
that would make a pistol-caliber MAC machinegun into a rifle caliber

machinegun.
Id. , ~
I I.
I I .Savage asked Spencer what his specific concern was, and Spencer said he
did not like the idea of a device such as Defendant being available for sale
without a background check, thus being lawfully sold "off the back of a
pickup truck at a gun show."
Id.,~
12.
12.To address Spencer's concerns, Savage suggested that the Defendant could
have a barrel shorter than I 6 inches attached to it and might therefore fit
the technical definition of a short-barreled rifle. Id.,
13.
I3.Spencer expressed enthusiasm for Savage's suggestion, and asked Savage

"How soon can you get it here?" 1 Id. ,~ 14.
I4.Savage quickly completed the manufacture of Defendant with a barrel
length of just less than 16 inches , registered it as a short-barreled rifled,
and sent it to FTB for examination as Spencer requested. Id.,
~~
15-16.
/s.on June I 0, 2008, Spencer wrote Savage a letter, advising Savage that FTB
had classified Defendant as a machinegun. Id.,
17 and Exh. A.
-.Spencer told Savage that Savage would have to register Defendant again,
but as a machinegun. Id.,
18.
Claimant understands that there may be a dispute of fact over whether Spencer
responded as Savage testifies he did. If there is such a dispute, it is not material to
this Motion.
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Anns, LLC
1232
3 J Pagc
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 4 of 15
.j 17.Because registration forms must be signed under oath, and because Savage
said he could not honestly state that Defendant is a machinegun, he
2
refused. Id.,
it 19.
18.Plaintiff "tested" Defendant in an effort to see if Plaintiff could convert

Defendant into a machinegun. To do so, Plaintiff attached to Defendant an
aluminum plate, some plastic ties, and some duct tape. When attempting to
make Defendant fire in this configuration, Plaintiffs crude contrivance
failed. 2nd Savage Deel., it 20, Exh. A, pp. 6-7.
19.Stepping up its game, Plaintiff tried once more, but this time replacing duct
tape and plastic ties with a steel turnbuckle ("tensioning bolt"). With the
aluminum plate, length of steel chain, and steel turnbuckle installed on
Defendant, Plaintiff was able to cause Defendant to fire automatically in an
uncontrolled fashion. Id..
21.
20.0nce initiated, the firing sequence could not be stopped (there being no
trigger to release), [Id., i122] although an FTB employee claimed he could
have stopped the firing sequence by grabbing and twisting the ammunition
belt. Deposition of Max Kingery, p. 110.
Claimant should stress that even registration of Defendant as a short-barreled rifle

required some reliance on ATF classifications with which Claimant disagrees.
Claimant believes Defendant should be treated the same as other, similar devices
that ATF has classified as not being firearms at all (GCA or NFA).
l :09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC

1233
41P a c
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 5 of 15
21. The same FTB employee noted that Defendant had to be physically held
down onto a surface while firing it with Plaintiffs parts attached, in order
to prevent Defendant from "fly[ing] back and the barrel . . . pointing
upward." Id., p. 111 .
j
NN\\=-
22.Plaintiff also demonstrated that Defendant would fire (as designed) by

mounting Defendant on a MAC machinegun. Id.,
if 23 .
..)23. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionmy defines "weapon" as "an instrument

of offensive or defensive combat: something to fight with."
24.As Plaintiff admits, Defendant is incapable of shooting as manufactured:
Q. ls the Defendant as it sits here today in the same condition that tt
was when received by FTB?
A. It appears to be with the exception of this slight damage ...
Q. Does that mean in the condition that the Defendant's in right

now, sitting on this table, it's not capable of firing?
A. Correct.
Q. You'd have to do something to it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. There' s nothing you could do to it with what's sitting
there right now to make it fire?
A. No, sir.
Kingery Depo., pp. 104-106.
/ is.In the instant case, Savage designed and built Defendant himself.
He
described in detai I in his deposition the process that he used and the intent
behind it:
He had a customer who intended to purchase a quantity of
caliber conversion devices for MAC machineguns to use 7 .62X54R

ammunition. Deposition of Lennis Savage, pp. 88-130.
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1234
SI Page
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 6of15
26.Witnesses for Plaintiff admit that Defendant does indeed convert the
caliber of a MAC machinegun to 7.62X54R:
Q. And then when you fire the combination of the Defendant and
the MAC lower, you're firing at 7.62X54R?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you fire the combination of a MAC lower with a
MAC upper, you're firing at the caliber of that particular MAC
upper, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Kingery Depo., p. 140.
27.Claimant demonstrated that Defendant cannot fire at all with its existing
component parts, and Plaintiff agrees. 2 00 Savage Deel.,
ii
25; Kingery
Depo., pp. 104-106.
/g.The MAC, being one of the most widely held machineguns in private
hands, has generated perhaps the greatest variety of caliber conversion
devices.
2nd
Savage Deel.,~ 26.
) 9.rn particular, Plaintiff has classified the Fleming caliber conversion device,
which converts the caliber of the MAC machinegun to .22, as not a firearm
under either the GCA or the NFA. Id.,
Jo.
The Fleming mounts on a MAC machinegun similarly to the way

Defendant does. Id.,
if 27, Exh. B.
ii 28.
1. The Fleming also can be caused to shoot automatically using exactly the
same plate, chain, and turnbuckle Plaintiff used to cause Defendant to
shoot automatically (a fact that Claimant demonstrated using Plaintiffs
parts). Id.,
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
if 29.
Historic Arms, LLC
1235
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
A2.The Fleming uses an open bolt and fixed firing pin.
Page 7 of 15
Id.,~ 27, Exh. B.
33.Plaintiff approved the Fleming conversion device in part because it will 11ot
work i11 a closed-bolt ha111111erjfred version of a MAC. Id.

34.Defendant likewise will not function properly in a closed-bolt hammerfired version of the MAC. 2rnl Savage Deel., 130.
35.Plaintiff observed in its letter to Mr. Fleming that the Fleming conversion
device uses an open bolt. Plaintiff concluded in its letter that the Fleming
conversion device is 1101 a firearm under either the GCA or the NFA. Id.
36.The MAC factory upper is not classified by Plaintiff as a firearm at all
under the GCA or the NFA. Id.,
~31.
37.A MAC upper uses an open bolt and fixed firing pin. Id., 132.
38.If Plaintiffs same plate, chain, and turnbuckle are installed on a MAC
upper, the MAC upper will fire. Id., 133.
39.Plaintiff classified as not being a firearm under either the GCA or NFA a
modification of a MAC upper to accept a 71-round Suomi drum magazine.
Id. , 135, Exh. C.

40.The modified MAC upper still uses an open bolt and fixed firing pin. Id., if
36.
41.If Plaintiffs plate, chain, and turnbuckle were installed on the "Suomi"
upper (i.e., a MAC upper with the Suomi drum magazine attached), the
1:09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Anns, LLC

1236
7 JPagc
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 8 of 15
upper would behave identically with Defendant - an entire 71-round

magazine would fire automatica11y.
id., iJ 3 7.
42.Plaintiff classified as not a firearm under either the GCO or the NFA a
Calico magazine mounted onto a MAC machinegun upper. Id.,
iJ 38, Exh.
D.
43.The modified upper (with Calico magazine attached) still uses an open bolt
and a fixed firing pin, yet it is not a machinegun according to Plaintiff. Id.,
if 39.
44.If Plaintiffs plate, chain, and turnbuckle were installed on a Calico/MAC
upper, the MAC upper would fire automatically until the ammunition was
exhausted. Id., iJ 40.
45.Starting with the design objective of building a MAC machinegun caliber
conversion device, Savage determined that it would be expeditious to use
component parts of other guns that already are configured for the new
caliber. Id.,
iI 41.
46. To that end, Savage began with the receiver for a VLTOR semi-automatic
rifle that fires 7.62X54R ammunition. Id., iJ 42.
47 .A VLTOR semiautomatic receiver differs in two distinct ways from the
fu11y automatic PKM receiver. First, there is a "machinegun bolt blocking
bar" attached to the floor of the VLTOR receiver. The purpose of the bar is
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Anns, LLC

1237
8 1 Pag~
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 9 of 15
to prevent the use of a machinegun bolt carrier in the VLTOR rifle. It

should be noted that both the VL TOR rifle and the PK.M machinegun use a
machinegun bolt carrier, but the bolt carrier is modified in the VLTOR rifle
(with Plaintiffs blessing). One such modification is the removal of the
sear surface on the semiautomatic version. The sear surface catches on the
blocking bar, thus preventing continuous operation (and fully automatic
firing).
Id.,~
45.
48.The other feature of the VL TOR receiver is that one of the two rails (there
is one on each side of the receiver) on which the bolt carrier rides is
oversized compared to the other.
A stock machinegun bolt carrier has
identically-sized rail slots that mate with the machinegun receiver rails.
The machinegun bolt carrier will not fit into the rails of the VLTOR rifle.
The semi-automatic bolt carrier, which has a modified rail on one side to
mate with the VLTOR receiver, will fit into the semi-automatic receiver.
Thus, in order to convert a VLTOR receiver into a fully automatic PKM
receiver, one must defeat both the blocking bar and the widened side rail.
Id.,
,146.
49.Savage only used a severed remnant of the VLTOR receiver for its
ammunition feeding capabilities.
Id.,~
47.
50.The floor of the receiver would have interfered with the ability to attach the
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Anns, LLC

1238
9 1Pag.c
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 10 of 15
finished caliber conversion device onto a MAC machinegun.
For this
reason, Savage used a plasma cutter to remove most of the floor of the
VLTOR rifle receiver, thus destroying the receiver and making it no longer
useful as a receiver at all (in either a semiautomatic VLTOR rifle or fully
automatic PKM). Id., if 49.
SI.In the process of removing most of the floor of the VLTOR receiver, the
blocking bar discussed earlier was removed (because it is attached to the
floor of the complete receiver and the floor was mostly removed).
Significantly, however, the side rails of the VLTOR receiver were not
disturbed - even after Savage cut away the floor of the receiver, it still was
impossible for a machinegun bolt carrier to fit into the severed remnant of
the VLTOR receiver. Id.. if 50.
52. The severed remnant of the VLTOR receiver was not usable as a receiver
at all at that point, because critical parts would fall out, other critical parts
cannot be attached, so even if the side rails had been modified to
accommodate a machine bolt carrier, the bolt carrier would not stay in and
the severed remnant would not have been a machinegun. Id., if 53.
53 .After cutting the floor out of the receiver, Savage attached the remnant to
many other parts, including a portion of a MAC machinegun upper (which
is a part that the ATF does 11ot consider to be a machinegun). Jd. , if 51 .
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Anns, LLC

1239
IO IP:Jg\!
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 11 of 15
54.By the time Savage finished welding many other parts onto the severed
VLTOR semiautomatic receiver remnant, the severed remnant no longer
was physically capable of attaching to either a VLTOR rifle or to a PKM
machinegun. In fact, by design, Defendant can only be attached to one
firearm type of which Claimant is aware: a MAC machinegun. Id.,
if 52.
55.The basic tenet of Plaintiffs "once a machinegun always a machingun"

theory is that once a device is properly classifiable as a machinegun, that
classification remains with the device no matter what modifications may be
made (short of destruction).
Plaintiff admitted as much when FTB
Assistant Chief Richard Vasquez testified that Defendant was beyond

"rehabilitation" and had to be destroyed to make it no longer a
machinegun. Deposition of Richard Vaszquez, pp. 86-87.
56.Plaintiffs fact and expert witness, FTB Firearms Examination Officer Max
Kingery deposed that a VLTOR semiautomatic rifle receiver, cut
essentially identically as the one Claimant used in constructing Defendant,
is a machinegun. Kingery Depo., pp. 149-150.
57 .He based this conclusion on the fact that the floor had been cut out of the
receiver so that the receiver no longer contained the blocking bar. Id.
58.The severed receiver remnant did, however, contain the widened side rail
and would not accept a machinegun bolt carrier nor function at all as a
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1240
11 IPagc
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 12of15
firearm. Id.. p. 152.

59.Kingery also (incorrectly) identified a standard semiautomatic UZI channel
(a GCA firearm receiver) as a machinegun, because the receiver did not
have a blocking bar. Id., p. 168.
60.An UZI channel is the receiver of the famous Israeli firearm. UZis are
made in both semiautomatic and fully automatic versions.
Deel.,~
2"d Savage
54.
61.The problem with Kingery's determination is that ATF does not classify
UZI channels as machineguns. Id.,
55.
62. They are readily purchasable throughout the country for well under $100.
Id. ,~
56.
63.A blocking bar (which also is readily available throughout the country)
must be installed in the channel when manufacturing a fully functional
semiautomatic UZI, but the channel without a blocking bar is just a
semiautomatic receiver (according to ATF classifications).
Id.,~
57.
64. The fact is that all VLTOR semiautomatic rifle and UZI receivers, at some
point in their manufacturing process, do not yet possess a blocking bar
(which is a part that must be installed into the receiver).
Id.,~
59.
65.The ATF does not take the position that these receivers are machineguns at
an early stage in the manufacturing process and then not machineguns at
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1241
12 Pa g c
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 13 of 15
the conclusion of this process (when blocking bars have been installed).
Id.,~
60.
66.Claimant complied with the registration regulation by filing a Form 2 on

April 21, 2008 with the information requested, and Plaintiff received the
Form 2 the same day (Claimant sent it by fax).
Id.,~
61, Exh. F.
67.Plaintiff accepted the Form 2 and returned it as accepted to Claimant,

despite the fact that Plaintiff had Defendant in its possession and knew in
advance what the general design of Defendant was. Id.
68.Mr. Spencer, the FTB Chief suggested in internal emails that Plaintiff
modify Defendant's registration unilaterally to reflect the fact that it is
machinegun. Deposition of John Spencer, p. 24.
69.Mr. Spencer deposed that he was told by counsel that his suggestion could
not be implemented because Form 2s are submitted under oath and the
government could not change someone's sworn statement. Id., pp. 24-26.
70.0n July 7, 2009, Plaintiff issued an "Open Letter to All Federal Firearms
Licensees," advising them that devices can be GCA or NFA firearms yet
not be rifles, shotgun, or handguns. Until this Open Letter was issued, it
was not clear that Plaintiff took that position. Thus, because Claimant
intended for Defendant to be mounted in a MAC machinegun that is fired
from the shoulder, Claimant assumed Plaintiff would classify Defendant as
1:09-CV-00192-GET
I listoric Anns, LLC
1242
l3 1Pagt::
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 14 of 15
a rifle. It is now clear that Plaintiff does not. 2"d Savage Deel., ~63, Exh.
G.
71.No other person or entity has a claim or interest in Defendant, and Plaintiff
does not dispute that Claimant is Defendant's true owner.
2nd Savage
Deel., 62.
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
678-362-7650
john.monroe l@earthlink.net
N.C. Bar 13151
Telephone: (704) 376-6455
Facsimile: (704) 332-5010
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1243
14 1Pagc
RIF
Document 38-3
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 15 of 15
I certify that on October 28 , 2009, I filed the foregoing using the ECF system, which
automatically wilJ email a coy to:
Mr. G. Jeffrey Viscomi, Esq.
Jeffrey. viscomi ri11usdoj.!!OV
Mr. Harry R. Foster, Esq.
Harry. fostcrfa. atr. uov
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1244
lS I P;jgl.!
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 1 of 30

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
)
SYSTEM" MACHINE GUN, SERIAL NO. Vl, )
)
)
Defendant.
No. 1:09-CV-00192-GET
SECOND DECLARATION OF LENNIS SAVAGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, Lennis Savage states as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 and otherwise competent to make this declaration,
which I make of my own knowledge.
2. I am the President of Historic Arms, LLC, the Claimant in this action.
3. Historic Arms, LLC, is a Special (Occupational) Taxpayer ("SOT") and
Federal Firearms Licensee ("FFL").
4. The owner of a "pre-ban" (also called "transferable") machine gun has an
incentive to make his existing machine gun as versatile as possible.
5. For that reason, it is popular among machine gun owners to equip the
machine guns with caliber conversion devices, so that the machine guns may
be used to shoot a variety of ammunition calibers. For example, the "MAC"
1245
RIF
,.
Case 1:09-cv-OO192-GET
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 2 of 30
type machine gun, originally made for .380 ACP, 9 mm and .45 ACP (i.e.,
"pistol caliber") ammunition could, through the use of a caliber conversion
device, shoot inexpensive .22 caliber ammunition and other rifle calibers.
6. On or about April 21, 2008, I completed the manufacture of Defendant.
7. The purpose of Defendant is to act as a caliber conversion device for the
owner of a MAC type machine gun.
8. When installed on a MAC machine gun, Defendant converts the caliber of
the MAC to 7.62X54R, a rifle cartridge commonly used in many fonner
Eastern Bloc guns and for which surplus ammunition is readily available.
9. While working on Defendant, I was in contact with the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Fireanns and Explosives ("ATF") Fireanns Technology Branch
("FTB") personnel.
IO.As an experienced manufacture and designer of many fireann systems and
components, I submit most of my inventions to FTB for classification to
make sure there will be no regulatory issues with them.
I I .During my discussions with John Spencer, Chief of the FTB, Spencer
expressed concern that Claimant was making a caliber conversion device
that would make a pistol-caliber MAC machine gun (i.e., a "sub machine
gun") into a rifle caliber machine gun.
2
1246
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 3 of 30
12.1 asked Spencer what his specific concern was, and Spencer said he did not
like the idea of a device such as Defendant being available for sale without a
background check, thus being lawfully sold "off the back of a pickup truck
at a gun show."
13.To address Spencer's concerns, I suggested that the Defendant could have a
barrel shorter than 16 inches attached to it and might therefore fit the
technical definition of a short-barreled rifle.
14.Spencer expressed enthusiasm for Savage's suggestion, and asked Savage
"How soon can you get it here?"
15.1 quickly completed the manufacture of Defendant and shortened the barrel
to just under 16 inches.
16.1 promptly sent the required ATF fonn to the NFA Branch of ATF to
register the Defendant as a short barreled rifle. I also sent Defendant to FTB
for inspection as Spencer had requested.
17.0n June 10, 2008, Spencer wrote me a letter, advising me that FTB had
classified Defendant as a machine gun. A true and correct copy of that letter
is attached as Exhibit A.
18.Spencer told me that I would have to register Defendant again, but as a
machine gun.
3
1247
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 4 of 30
19.Because registration forms must be signed under oath, and because I said I
could not honestly state that Defendant is a machine gun, I refused.
20.Plaintiff "tested" Defendant in an effort to see if Plaintiff could convert
Defendant into a machine gun. To do so, Plaintiff attached to Defendant an
aluminum plate, some plastic ties, and some duct tape. When attempting to
make Defendant fire in this configuration, Plaintiffs crude contrivance
failed.
21. Stepping up its game, Plaintiff tried once more, but this time replacing duct
tape and plastic ties with a steel turnbuckle ("tensioning bolt"). With the
aluminum plate, length of steel chain, and steel turnbuckle installed on
Defendant, Plaintiff was able to induce Defendant to fire automatically in an
uncontrolled fashion. I have witnessed multiple video recordings made by
Plaintiff showing Defendant fired this way, with the firing uncontrolled.
22. The firing was "uncontrolled" because, lacking any ki11d of trigger
mecllanism, Plaintiff had to initiate the firing sequence by pulling and then
releasing the bolt handle. Once initiated, the firing sequence could not be
stopped (there being no trigger to release).
23 .I also have observed Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant would fire (as
designed) by mounting Defendant on a MAC machine gun.
4
1248
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 5 of 30
24.Defendant must be mounted on a specific host firearm (i.e., a MAC machine

gun) or, as Plaintiff demonstrated with its plate, chain, and turnbuckle,
modified in order to be capable of shooting.
25. While testing Defendant at the Coweta County Sheriff's firing range on June
10, 2009, in the presence of several ATF employees, I demonstrated that
Defendant cannot fire at all with its existing component parts.
26.The MAC, being one of the most widely held machine guns in private hands,
has generated perhaps the greatest variety of caliber conversion devices.
27.Plaintiff has classified the Fleming caliber conversion device, which
converts the caliber of the MAC machine gun to .22, as "nothing" (meaning
it is not a firearm under either the GCA or the NFA). A copy of Plaintiffs
May 17, 1993 letter to William H. Fleming (the "Fleming Letter")
containing that classification is attached as Exhibit B.
28. The Fleming mounts on a MAC machine gun similarly to the way Defendant
does.
29.The Fleming also can be converted into a machine gun using exactly the
same plate, chain, and turnbuckle Plaintiff used to convert Defendant into a
machine gun (a fact that I demonstrated using Plaintiffs parts). Manually
s
1249
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 6 of 30
filed separately is a CD containing a video in which I demonstrate the firing

of a Fleming converted into a machine gun using Plaintiffs parts.
30.Defendant will not function properly in a closed-bolt hammer-fired version
of the MAC.
31. The factory MAC upper is not classified by Plaintiff as a firearm at all under
the GCA or the NFA.
32.A MAC upper uses an open bolt and fixed firing pin.
33.If Plaintiffs same plate, chain, and turnbuckle are installed on a MAC
upper, the MAC upper will fire.
34.A standard MAC upper does not, however, contain an ammunition feeding
device. For this reason, a standard MAC upper will not fire more than one
shot even with Plaintiffs conversion device attached.
35.Plaintiff approved (i.e., classified as not being a fireann under either the
GCA or NFA) a modification of a MAC upper to accept a 71-round Suomi
drum magazine. A copy of Plaintiff's March 13, 2003 Letter to Anthony
Smith (the "Suomi Letter") is attached as Exhibit C.
36.The modified MAC upper still uses an open bolt and fixed firing pin.
37.If Plaintiff's plate, chain, and turnbuckle were installed on the "Suomi"
upper (i.e., a MAC upper with the Suomi drum magazine attached), the
6
1250
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 7 of 30
upper would behave identically with Defendant - an entire 71-round

magazine would fire automatically.
38.Plaintiff approved (i.e., classified as not a firearm under either the GCO or
the NFA) another ammunition feeding device I designed, a Calico magazine
mounted onto a MAC machine gun upper. A copy of Plaintiffs June 17,
2005 Letter to me (the "Calico Letter") is attached as Exhibit D.
39. The modified upper (with Calico magazine attached) still uses an open bolt
and a fixed firing pin, yet it is not a machine gun.
40.lf Plaintiffs plate, chain, and turnbuckle were installed on a Calico/MAC
upper, the MAC upper would fire automatically until the ammunition was
exhausted.
41.Starting with the design objective of building a MAC machine gun caliber
conversion device, to 7.62X54R, I determined that it would be expeditious
to begin with component parts of other guns that already are configured for
the new caliber.
42. To that end, I began with the receiver for a VLTOR semi-automatic rifle that
fires 7.62X54R ammunition.
43. The VLTOR receiver I used was for a "PKM" type semiautomatic rifle.
7
1251
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 8 of 30
44. The "PKM" was originally made as a fully automatic machine gun. It also is
now made in semiautomatic versions, including the VL TOR semiautomatic
rifle whose receiver is integral to Claimant's design of Defendant.
45.A VL TOR semiautomatic receiver differs in two distinct ways from the fully
automatic PKM receiver. First, there is a "machine gun bolt blocking bar"
attached to the floor of the receiver. The purpose of the bar is to prevent the
use of a machine gun bolt carrier in the VLTOR rifle. It should be noted that
both the VLTOR rifle and the PKM machine gun use a machine gun bolt
carrier, but the bolt carrier is modified in the VLTOR rifle (all with
Plaintiff's blessing).
One such modification is the removal of the sear
surface on the semiautomatic version.
The sear surface catches on the
blocking bar, thus preventing continuous operation (and fully automatic

firing).
46. The other feature of the VLTOR receiver is that one of the two rails (one on
each side of the receiver) on which the bolt carrier rides is oversized
compared to the other.
A stock machine gun bolt carrier has identically-
sized rails slots that mate with the machine gun receiver rails. The machine
gun bolt carrier will not fit into the rails of the VLTOR rifle. The semiautomatic bolt carrier, which has a modified rail on one side to mate with the
8
1252
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 9 of 30
VLTOR receiver, will fit into the semi-automatic receiver. Thus, in order to
convert a VLTOR receiver into a fully automatic PKM receiver, one must
defeat both the blocking bar and the widened side rail.
4 7.1 had no use for the entire receiver, however, as I only used a severed
remnant of the VLTOR receiver for its ammunition feeding capabilities.
48.1 used many other parts, both from stock or from scratch, to make a finished
caliber conversion device that would attach directly onto a MAC machine
gun.
49 .I did not need the bulk of the floor of the VLTOR rifle receiver. In fact, the
floor would have interfered with the ability to attach the finished caliber
conversion device onto a MAC machine gun. For this reason, I used a
plasma cutter to remove most of the floor of the VLTOR rifle receiver, thus
destroying the receiver and making it no longer useful as a receiver at all (in
either a semiautomatic VLTOR rifle or fully automatic PKM).
50.ln the process of removing most of the floor of the VLTOR receiver, the
blocking bar discussed earlier was removed (because it is attached to the
floor of the complete receiver and the floor was mostly removed). The side
rails of the VLTOR receiver were not disturbed - even after I cut away the
9
1253
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 10 of 30
floor of the receiver, it still was impossible for a machine gun bolt carrier to
fit into the severed remnant of the VLTOR receiver.
51.After cutting the floor out of the receiver, I attached the remnant to many
other parts, including a portion of a MAC machine gun upper (which is a
part that the ATF does not consider to be a machine gun).
52.By the time I finished welding many other parts onto the severed VLTOR
semiautomatic receiver remnant, the severed remnant no longer was
physically capable of attaching to either a VLTOR rifle or to a PKM
machine gun. In fact, by design, Defendant can only be attached to one
firearm type of which I am aware: a MAC machine gun.
53. The severed remnant of the VL TOR receiver was not usable as a receiver at
all at that point, because critical parts would fall out, other critical parts
cannot be attached, so even if the side rails had been modified to
accommodate a machine bolt carrier, the bolt carrier would not stay in and
the severed remnant would not have been a machine gun.
54.An UZI channel is the receiver of the famous Israeli firearm. UZis are made
in both semiautomatic and fully automatic versions.
55.ATF does not classify UZI channels as machine guns.
56.They are readily purchasable throughout the country for well under $100.
10
1254
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 11 of 30
57.A blocking bar (which also is readily available throughout the country) must
be installed in one when manufacturing a fully functional semiautomatic
UZI, but the channel without a blocking bar is just a semiautomatic receiver
(according to ATF classifications).
58.A photograph comparing a standard PKM semiautomatic receiver, a PKM
receiver remnant similar to the one used by Claimant to build the Defendant,
and a standard semiautomatic UZI receiver is attached as Exhibit E.
59.All VLTOR semiautomatic rifle and UZI receivers, at some point in their
manufacturing process, do not yet possess a blocking bar (which is a part
that must be installed into the receiver).
60.The ATF does not take the position that these receivers are machine guns at
an early stage in the manufacturing process and then not machine guns at the
conclusion of this process (when blocking bars have been installed).
61.1 filed a Form 2 for Defendant on April 21, 2008 with the information
requested, and Plaintiff received the Form 2 the same day (I sent it by fax).
A copy of the Form 2 that I received back approved by ATF is attached as
Exhibit F.
11
1255
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 12 of 30
62.Claimant designed and manufactured Defendant using Claimant's parts,

tools, and employees. No other person or entity has a claim or interest in
Defendant.
63. On July 7, 2009, the ATF issued an "Open Letter to All Federal Fireanns
Licensees," advising them that devices can be GCA or NFA fireanns yet not
be rifles shotguns, or handguns. Until this Open Letter was issued, it was
not clear that Plaintiff took that position. Because I intended for Defendant
to be mounted in a MAC machine gun that is fired from the shoulder, I
assumed that Plaintiff would classify Defendant as a rifle. It is not clear that
Plaintiff does not A true and correct copy of the Open Letter is attached as
Exhibit G.
This the ~day of October, 2009.
12
1256
RIF
i.

Fueanns and Explosives
903050:MMK
3311/2008-472
Mr. Len Savage
Historic Anns, LLC
1486 Cherry Road
JUN 10 2008
Dear Mr. Savage:

This refers to your letter of April 21, 2008, to the Fireanns Technology Branch (FTB). Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns and Explosives (ATF), regarding a submitted prototype. Your
submission is a modified P.KM-cype, 7.62x54R caliber machinegun receiver assembly, which
you have designated the Model 54RCCS, serial number VJ. You request verification that the
designed for "exclusive use in a MACtype macbinegun as a caliber conversion device.
Modified P.KM-type receiver, mated with a MAC-type upper.
'" -.'-~
. ... .
'
..
..
"~
_,.
Sti>mltted 8ample
Hator1c Mns LLC, Model: 54RCCS, Si!rial No.: Vi
2nd Savage Declaration

Exh. A, Page 1 of 8 RIF
1257
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 14 of 30
Mr. Len Savage
The FfB examination noted the following external markings:

HISTORIC ARMS LLC

FRANKLIN GA .ff'
S4RCCS 7.62x54R
SERIAL No - Vt
EA-141
1976
photos, below):

1258
Document 38-4
..
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 15 of 30
-~-
Mr. Len Savage

1259
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 16 of 30
Mr. Len Savage
wunodificd machinegun bolt.

1260
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 17 of 30
-5Mr. Len Savage

In addition, a modified PKM-type machinegun bolt-canier-group was found installed. The
machinegun sear.
Guld6Rall
.. .
j;:':~~ -- . ~~:~
~ n-Modlfleei
. j
'.~
.;,
ao1t-Cartler Aesembiy

1261
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 18 of 30
-6-
Mr. Len Savage
Th~
submitted sample was test fired on May 8, 2008, at the ATF test range, Martinsburg, West
plate (from stock), approximately 1-1/4 inch x l inch and approximately 3/16 inch thick, was
tied to the rear of the receiver using duct tape and two plastic tics (see photo below).

1262
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 19 of 30
-7-
Mr. Len Savage

With the nonnal factory trigger removed, the operating handle becomes the nigger which
securely bold the aluminwn plate in place and would not be cut by the sharp edges of the
aluminum plate.
The use of a modified bolt did not remove the macbinegun features of this bolt. It is still an
In review of your modifications of the PKM-type machinegun receiver, it was determined. that
the original machinegun design features/characteristics were retained.. Specifically, a PKM-type
that a MAC-type upper assembly was welded to the PKM-type macbinegun receiver, which
stock and/or pistol grip on the MAC-type macbinogun receiver to which it is mounted. Further.
to be utilized in initiating the automatic firing sequence of the PKM-type machincgun receiver.

1263
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 20 of 30
-8-
Mr. Len Savage

In conclusion, FfB found that the "Model 54RCCS, serial number VJ" submitted with your
correspondence is a weapon that shoots automatically more than one shot. without manual
reloading, by a single function of the trigger; it also incorporates the frame orreceivcr of a
U.S.C. S845(b).
or nol The welding of MAC-type upper section to the internal portion of your PKM-type
account number or other appropriate carrier infonnation within 30 days after receiving this letter.
We trUSt the foregoing has been responsive to your request for an evaluation and classification.
If we can be of any funher assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
J::~n:+~
Chief. 'Firearms Technolo2v Brat'!'"

1264
Document 38-4
_'!&.
.:-
Filed 1"0/28/2.u o.9 .
y, ,..,..i..: \, '
'"r '
4 .. ..\
, .
Page 21 of ~O .." . .-
: j
. ;
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY . '
... '
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL. TOBACCO A ..D FIREARMS

WASHNGTON,D.C. 20U6 .
.
LB:P:~E:EllO
MAY 1 llm
3311.4
..
..
1265
RIF
~t .;.'-""'f ,'..
""~:
.J
/
~10~
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 22 of 30
DEPARTMENI Of"'"Htl:. 1~ute1'
BUREAU OF AL.COHO.. TOBACCOANDFIRl<ARMS

WASHl,..QTON, DC 2022'5
903050: (b) (6)
AS SISTA.HT
DIRECTOR
3311/2003-268
MAR 1 3 a;03
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103

Dear
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
This is in reply to your letter, with submitted

drawings, concerning the modification of a registered
machinegun that you own. You ask whether you can make
a new upper receiver and attach it to your registered
machinegun.
You enclosed a drawing showing changes you would like
to make to your registered SWD Mll/9 submachinegun,
serial number (b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103 . You propose to make a new
upper receiver, which will extend in front of the
original receiver and will contain a mount for a 71
round Suomi drwn magazine. The original bolt and
barrel will be used. The SWD machinegun receiver will
not be changed.
Based on the description provided, the proposed
modifications to your registered macbinegun would not
be prohibited under the provisions of the Gun Control
Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act. A magazine
housing from an original Suomi submachinegun could be
used provided that you do not make or possess a new
Any other modifications, which result in making or
possessing a new machinegun receiver, would be

unlawful. You should be aware that changing the lower
receiver in any manner could result in the manufacture
WWW.ATF.TREAS.fiOV
2nd Savage Declaration, Exhibit C, Page 1 of 2

1266
RIP
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 23 of 30
-~-
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
-- - ---
..
--
-- - -
. ... ..
- - -..- .. - ---
.. ..
of a new machinegun, which is prohibited under Title

18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 44. FUrther,
Title 26, U.S.C., Chapter 53 prohibits tampering with
the serial number in any manner. Title 26, u.s.c.,
section 586l(g} states, it shall be unlawful for any
.person to obliterate, remove, change, or elter the
serial numbe~ or other identification of a firearm
required by this chapter.
We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to
your inquiry. If we can be of any further assistance ,
please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
7~
\1
( _ ~~/.\~
.- . .
..
- - .. -.. .
CUrcie H.A. Bartlett
-- -. - -
--- -- -------- - - -- .. --
2nd Savage Declaration, Exhibit C, Page 2 of 2

1267
RIP
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 24 of 30
U.S. DepartJnentof Justice

903050~RDC
JUN - 7 2005
331112005-440
www.alf.go\'
Mr. Len Savage

President
Historic Arms LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Franklin, GA 30217
Dear Mr. Savage:

This refers to your letter of May 25, 2005, to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB). Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). regarding the legality of modifying an MlOor Ml 1-type upper recei vcr to accept a Calico-type helical magazine.
As you are aware, the Gun Cootrol Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 9Zl(a)(3), defines the term
"firearm.. to include the folJowing:
... (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily
converted to expel a projectile by the action ofan explosive,- {BJ the frame or receiver ofany
.such weapon; (C) any firearm muJjler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does
not include an antiquefirearm.
Further. the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a). defines "firearm" as-
.. .(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length,- (2) a weapon made
from a shotgun ifsuch weapon as modified has an overall length ofless than 26 inches or a
barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length, (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less
than 16 inches in length, (4) a weapon made from a rifle ifsuch weapon as modified has an
overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5)
any o/her weapon, as defined in subsection (e), (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in
18 U.S.C. 921); and (8) a destructive device. The term "firearm" shall not include an antique
firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed
as a weapon, the ...[U.S. Attorney General] ... finds by reason ofthe date of its manufacture,
value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be wed
asa weapon.

Exh. D Page 1 of 3 RIF
1268

Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 25 of 30
-2-
Mr. Len Savage

Based on the FTB evaluation of the submitted drawing, it appears that the proposed
Ml O/Ml I-type upper receiver assembly will be redesigned to accommodate a CaJico heJical
magazine mounted atop the receiver. In addition, you state the firearm's original semiautomatic
function will not be altered.
The upper receiver of an Ml 0/Ml I type firearm does not constitute the frame or receiver of a
fireann, as that term is defined in 27 CFR Section 478.11 (fonnerly 178.11 ). Based on the
infonnation provided, the manufacture of a modified Ml 0/Ml 1-type upper receiver that is
redesigned to accept a Calico helical magazine does not constitute the manufacture of a .frame or
receiver of a fireann. The proposed upper receiver is not subject to either 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44
{the GCA) or 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53 (the NFA).
.... . This detennination is relevant to the item as proposed. Any alterations or modifications to.the
design would subject the item to further review.
further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Si{
Sterling Nixon

1269

.:09-cv-00192-GET
MmtinsburJ. WV 25401
www..iC.gov
903050:RV
331112007-076
NOV 03 DB
Mr. Len Savage
President
Historic Arms. LLC
1486 Cherry Road

Dear Mr. Savage:
This is in response to your inquiry to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding whether FfB intends to reclassify
your design of an Ml 0- or Ml I-type upper receiver modified to accept a Calico-type helical
magazine.
Our Branch issued a classification of this modification in our June 7, 2005, letter to you (please
refer to #33 J 1/2005-440). We found that, apan from feeding from a Calico magazine, the design
features of the original M 1O/M11 had not changed significantly. Therefore. the FTB
classification provided in #2005-440 will not be re-evaluated.
further assisumce.
Sincerely yours,
~ u:~ -n--./
~.. Sterling Nixon
l/

1270
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 27 of 30
BOITOM FLOOR OFTIIE

RECEIVER REMOVED AND \vmI
IT. TIIE "BLOCKING BAR
OVERSIZED GUIDE RAIL TO

PREVENT INSTALLATION OF
NO BOLT "BLOCKING BAR"

PRESENT IN TiiE RECEIVER TO
MACHINE GUN BOLT ANO

CARRIER
PREVENT MACHINE GUN

BOLT INSTALLATION
"BLOCKlNG BAR TIIAT

PREVENfS INSTALLATION OF
VLTOR
SEVERED
SEMlAUTO RECEIVER REMNANT
UZI
CHANNElJRECEJVER

Exh. E Page 1 of 1 RIF
1271
,
~
....
:.i .
.__.
t..
...
( "
~-
(") n:
Q) , r
u,s. D parlmtlll al Junlcc
OMll Ho
-'
B11tu11 of Alcnbol, Tobacw, Fllcanns ad F.xplosh'CS
N
:::J
0..
(JJ
Q)
CD
CD
(")
Q)
en ::
~
......
lUJ/J lnG01J
<l>
Notice of Firearms Mnnufacturcd or lmpo1ted
TlR undudtoal hrreby nnos 11ottcc oflhua1Dalithl..., rttcllvall., arinlf'Drlallon 11rr.~.,...,., u ra1ulrul Ii) Ii 58~1 fifiNI
- - - - - - -- - I lb. l'tiiill Nulllhct
I. Tnicat~olioc &. F'11WJDSmlhlsNol!u1R(c!lcclccnc): Muufulllmf~ RatliYiilcdQ 111\1*1cd (aiarpctcU.;10
11rc111m1 Uccnre NtniliCi
l. I'
LENfllS P. SAV.ACEm
15114, U7 auomo
16-16"8'1
.5. Nut;rort'llc:in11J Com<ll by this tlolicc
rPhooc Nunibci
4 .Employer 1dCiilr.::.iioii Nwiibifunifclass
...... !t-
<.O
~p
Corporadcia
18}
G> ,
m ~
--i :.s:
~
Al!dilional Ducripllo::
CallbctO;ug~
(SH /nl/'11Cll~ Jc)
(Su /iuuu.1loaJ1)
"
01Slu
c
SDlt
00
21-.\l'ltllAll
I. OacsiplioCLOfflr.:11111(1)
T11' ofrll\lam
7.61X54R CALIBER CONVERSION SVSCl\l\r
Meile!
"
.S~RCCS
1.G1X!4R
&m:I
l..c11g1h
Ovmll
llaial'Nllmbu
1.tllalh
(Su lnsiftlClion Jrl)
15.1.5"
17"-l&"
t
VI
Q)
3 l;'
;,,.
:::J >"
.-.. :-- .
<l>
VJ
~ ~:
t:'
1;:
m
x
lJ
Q)
cc
CD i
11
......
c..
..
0
<D
"
(i)' ..
:::J
,,
t~
l"r'
(")
d:
.::r
f,<"
~ ~
711(-61~11
..
ro111c 0CMW1iii'~c,a-1i\iii1i11:Lar Rlleasc mCllS!ams

Sole J>ropddor
I .
< ......
g ~
JDSTORIC ARMS LLC

1'486 qtERQY RO.
mANIClJH, OA.3Dlt7
.,
0 :~
<D
~..-")
~
I
.lit 2( U.S;C. Chpltr SJ.

Ic:-&prnlliift Dall:
2. N1111u!ld Address (lndridllll lrlldt n0111t. V'ClllJ')
<
m
cc
11-10.00 1~
UiwEll PENALTI.lill OF PEBJUIU', 1'1>Cl.Al1Jl lhal l bin mllllnrd lhb aadc1 ol nrunns 1UJ1Ufac111mt, rcacll.,.lnl
An U aucrltllon.i w"'II')
or lmp11rlt~ and, II ..t 11..C of.,7 liiil'ITlcJ10 and btlltf, II ls u-.c, arr&d HJ ~1roplrct.
'1111panca Undrt 26 U.S.C. f-'144 for

Ust (A) B7 a GfMnllnCllt Agc:llC)I, (2)
~-"~ m,"-'~'ft~
r .
CD
10.
-lo.
Ltllllh f . S11Ya& W,l'ialdeal
r /
w-11111 n11e orAulharlud omcial
V/
I. fllbi&D11c
11.,\l'IUl,Q
tlFA Canlrol Nu"'bet
Far Sclullilic er Ran1dl Pmpc11cs, ar

(ll Anl.fodclorS::te.Smnplc.
0
(Not~
Hr/"1iqvN..,.. lfDI 1wbj1a"'

IWH t'CltriQlonz}
Machlnc11111 Mam1rae1urcd or
)lllJIOll"1Allu M3)' 19, 19&G
(14 U.S.~ I '2l(o))
~
~
0
,."'2. oc'?:, Y lo~
.,.
1J l
4Cf
Q)
co
ct> :;,
N
00
R.:'M)\t'tl 2 2008
f;
(.,.)
l.Tf .,,."" J (1>11111
l t1WM,JOOI
-ft
-lo.
~;-
;r.:..
1272
RIF
JUL - 7 2009
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009 Page 29 of 30

Frrearms and Explosives
Assistant Director
WllShington, DC 20226
II
II
OPEN LEITER TO ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries
about selling or delivering .firearm frames or receivers. The purpose of this open letter is
to provide you with guidance on certain regulatory requirements and definitions under the
Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).
The GCA at Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 921(a)(3), defines ".firearm"
as " ... (A) 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; (BJ the frame or
receiver ofany such weapon; (CJ any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any
destmctive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. "
I
I
Under section 921(a)(3)(B), frames or receivers are defined as firearms. However,

frames and receivers are not rifles, shotguns, or handguns (pistols or revolvers), even if
they can only be made into one of these firearms. See Title 27, Code of Federal
Regulations, section 478.11 (defining these tenns). This is because a frame or receiver
does not have the features required for a rifle or shotgun {e.g., a buttstock indicating it is
designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder), or a pistol or revolver (e.g., a
weapon with a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and
extending below the line of the bore). As a result, Federal firearms licensees (FFLs)
should note several things:
First, an FFL may not sell a frame or receiver to anyone under 21 years of age. [Title 18,
U.S.C., section 922{b)(l)].
I!
I
I'
Second, an FFL may not transfer a frame or receiver to an unlicensed person from
another State. [Title 18, U.S.C., section 922(b)(3)].
Third, multiple handgun sales forms (ATF Fonns 3310.4) are not required for sales of
frames or receivers of any firearm, as they are not pistols or revolvers.
For guidance, the following question-and-answer section Is provided:
1. How should a licensed .dealer record in his records the tran sfer of a frame or
receiver to an unlicensed purchaser?
A dealer must record in his/her acquisition and disposition record and on ATF
Form 4473 the type of.firearm as a ..frame" or "receiver'' (as applicable). The

Exh. G, Page 1 of 2
1273
RIF
Document 38-4
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 30 of 30
-2-
OPEN LETTER TO ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES

dealer must also include in any record the make, model, and serial number of the
receiver.
2. May a licensed dealer lawfully transfer a frame or receiver that can only be
used to assemble a rifle to an 18year-old?
No. A frame or receiver is a type of firearm "other than a shotgun or rifle" and
the transfer by the dealer to an individual under 21 years of age would be
prohibited by Title 18, U.S.C., section 922(b)(l). A frame is not "designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder";
therefore, it is not a rifle or shotgun as de.fined under the GCA.
3. Does a licensed dealer need to complete and submit a multiple sales form
after selling, within five consecutive business days, two or more frames that
can only be used to assemble two or more pistols?
No. Multiple sales forms (ATF Forms 3310.4) are not required for sales of
frames or receivers of any firearm, as they are not pistols or revolvers as defined
under 27 CFR 478.11.
j
ATF remains committed to assisting licensees in complying with Federal fireanns laws.
If you have any questions, please contact your local ATF office.
Carson W. Carroll
Assistant Director
(Enforcement Programs and Services)
2nd Savage Declaration Exh. G, Page 2 of 2

1274
RIF
Page 1 of27
0001
1
2

ATLANTA DIVISION

Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
vs.
6
7
8
9
ONE HISTORIC ARMS MODEL

54RCCS A7.62X54R CALIBER
CONVERSION SYSTEM@
MACHINEGUN, SERIAL NO. Vl,
Defendant.
FILE NO.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
10
11
12
13
DEPOSITION OF
WILLIAM N. MESSENGER, PE, CBSI
14
15
16
17
18
September 18, 2009

9:30 a.m.
2600 Century Parkway, NE
Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia
19
20
21
Yolanda R. Narcisse, CCR-B-2445
22
23
24
25
0002
1
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
2
3
On behalf of the Plaintiff:
G. JEFFREY VISCOMI, Esq.
4
U. S . Department of Justice
5
United States Attorney's Office
75 Spring Street, SW
Suite 600
6
( 4 04) 581-6036
7
(404) 581-6181 (Facsimile)
8
9
HARRY R. FOSTER, III, Esq.
10
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms &
Explosives
11
12
(40 4 ) 417-2696
(404) 417-2691 (Facsimile)
13
harry.foster@atf . gov
14
On behalf of the Claimant:
15
JOHN R. MONROE, Esq.
16
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
17
Roswell, Georgia 30075
(678) 362-7650
18
(770) 552-9318 (Facsimile)
19
john.monroel@earthlink.net
20
Also Present:
1275
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/091809WM.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 2 of27
21
22
23
Mr . Len Savage, Claimant; President, Historic

Arms, LLC
Mr . Mason Kingery, Firearms Technology Branch,
Explosives
24
25
0003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Reporter disclosure made pursuant to

Article 8.B. of the Rules and Regulations of the
Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council
of Georgia. )
WILLIAM N. MESSENGER, PE,
having been first duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. VISCOMI:
Q.
Good morning, Mr . Messenger.
A.
Good morning.
Q.
My name is Jeffrey Viscomi . I'm with the
United States Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of Georgia.
A.
Okay.
Q.
With me in the room here today are Harry
Foster, assistant chief counsel.
MR. FOSTER: Just attorney .
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) Attorney with the ATF
Atlanta division office, along with Max Kingery from
the Firearms Technology Branch in the ATF. And for
the deposition today, we are going to do it in this
manner, I'm going to go through your qualifications
through your CV, and then my portion will be done.
You won't hear from me anymore. Then Mr . Foster will
0004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0005
1
2
3
4
continue with the rest of the deposition.

Also, for the record, we have John Monroe
with us, the attorney for the claimant Historic Arms,
Mr. Len Savage, yourself, of course, and the court
reporter.
If at any time you don't understand a
question I ask you, please don't hesitate to ask me
to restate it. If you do answer the question as I
pose it, the assumption will be that you understood
it.
A.
Okay .
Q.
If you can't hear me, that's fine. I will
try and keep my voice up. And when you do give an
answer, if it's a yes or no kind of thing, please say
yes or no. Don't nod or say uh-uh, because that
won't come through for the court reporter.
A.
All right.
Q.
And also, for the court reporter's sake,
let's try not to talk over one another. I don't
think that will be a problem, but just so we're
clear . I'm going to ask you to start by stating your
full name for the record.
A.
My name is William Nelson Messenger.
Q.
Mr. Messenger, how old are you?
A.
47 -- or 46.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Where do you currently live?

5320 Bull Road, Dover, Pennsylvania .
Is Dover in the Philadelphia metro area?
No . That's just outside of York, south of
1276
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/09 l 809WM.TXT
RIF
913012009
Page 3 of27
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the Harrisburg area.

Q.
Where are you currently employed?
A.
Johnson, Mirmiran & Thomps on.
Q.
What is Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson?
A.
Civil engineering; predominantly
transportation engineering .
Q.
What is your position there?
A.
Senior structural engineer.
Q.
How long have you be en there?
A.
I started October o f '89.
Q.
Can you tell me a little bit about your
duties as a senior structural e ngineer?
A.
I'm involved in the design o f heavy
structures. I'm also involved in inspection and
rating of heavy structures. I get involved in the
construction aspect, specificatio ns, and testing
procedures for construction purposes.
Q.
When you started with -- I'm referring to
Johnson
A.
JMT for short.
Q.
JMT . That's an easier way to put it. The
middle name trips me up a little. When you started
with JMT, what was your positio n?
A.
I started as an i ntern.
Q.
Was that in 1989?
A.
Yes.
Q.
I'm looking at yo ur CV . It l ooks like you
graduated from Penn State in 1990?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So I would assume you went there full time
after your graduation?
A.
Yes .
Q.
When you began working fu l l time, what was
your position?
A.
Design engineer; junior design engineer.
Q.
Have you alwa ys worked as an engineer kind
of working your way up to senior engineer?
A.
Yes.
Q.
I assume, at Penn State you studied
engineering ; i s that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, I noticed in your CV that you
received your professional engineering license. It
was issued in 2005 in Pennsylvania?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Now, prior to that, did yo u have an
25
0007
engineering license?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
A.
No .
Q.
I apologize, I don't know anything about
the licensure of engineers. You were able t o work
without a license for that period of time, that
15 years?
A.
I must work underneath another licensed
engineer .
Q.
I see.
So it's sort o f like an
apprenticeship of sorts?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, have you had any other side jobs or
anything like that you've done while you've been
working as an engineer for JMT?
A.
I've done some independent consulting of
small structures for small institutions, businesses,
1277
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/091809WM.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 4 of27
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
friends, et cetera.
Q.
Does any of your work at JMT relate in any
way to firearms?
A.
No .
The consulting work that you just
Q.
described, has that related in any way to firearms?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you go to college straight out of high
school?
0008
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Yes; and then I took a break from college.
Q.
So when did you begin college?
A.
That would have been '82.
Q.
Where did you begin college?
A.
That would have been Penn State, the
Worthington Scranton campus.
Q.
How long were you in before you took a
break?
A.
One year.
Q.
What were you studying?
At that point, general engineering . It
A.
would have been engineering science because I had not
chosen a major.
Q.
What happened that you chose to take a
break?
A.
I wasn't sure if I wanted to pursue
engineering. At that time, I started a small
business with my brother.
Q.
What was the nature of the business?
A.
Landscaping, lawn care.
Q.
How long did you work at that?
A.
Let's see. Three years, I believe.
Q.
After the three years, what did you do?
A.
I decided that I probably would n ot be
able to continue that line of work int o my 50s.
Q.
A.
Q.
Fair enough.
And I went back to school .
So then did you return to Penn State at
that point?
A.
No . I returned to Lockhaven because I
could not afford Penn State. I was there for one
year. My mother got a position at Penn State. And
at that point, I had a very large tuition reduction
as one of her corporate benefits and returned to Penn
State.
Q.
And you returned, did you return to
your CV says Capitol campus.
A.
I returned originally to University Park,
which was where my parents were living . I decided
living at home and going to school was no t good and
then transferred to the Capitol campus .
Q.
Is University Park the main campus?
A.
Yes .
Q.
You left and you went t o the Capitol
campus . Is that -- by the name, I'm gue ssing, it's
around Harrisburg?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And that's where you graduate d fr om in
1990?
A.
Yes .
0010
1
Q.
college?
2
In total, how many years were you in

1278
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 5 of27
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Six, I believe.
Did you hold, I'm not asking about minor
college jobs at the booksto re or the hardware store
or anything like that, did you hold any o ther jobs in
that period?
A.
I interned with two other engineering
firms; Comprehensive Design Associates for a summer
and I also interned with Gannet Flemming Corporation
for a summer .
Q.
What does Gannet Flemming do?
A.
The same; transportation engineering.
When I started with Gannet, the only positions they
had available were in highway design and I really
didn't have enough interest. So whenever an
opportunity with JMT opened up in the structures
division, I jumped ship and moved over there.
Q.
Is it fair to say that your entire career
has been in the field of structural engineering not
counting the landscaping portion?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And that structural engineering has
primarily focused on transportation engineering?
Correct.
A.
A.
Q.
0011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q.
It sounds s omewhat self evident from the
title . Could you kind of just briefly explain what
transportation engineering involves?
A.
On my end in heavy structures,
predominantly bridges, fine structures, other
ancillary structures. I design, load rate, analyze.
That would be the primary fo c us of where I've been -I also get involved in inspection and fi eld analysis.
That's the main thrust of my duties.
Q.
Have you ever served in the military?
A.
No, sir .
Q.
Do you hold any federal lice nse s?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Have you ever had any s o rt o f
firearms-related licenses?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Would you desc ribe yoursel f as a gun
enthusiast?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
How long have you been a gun enthusiast?
A.
Probably since I've been ten or 12.
Q.
Do you current l y own any guns?
Yes, sir.
A.
Q.
Approximately h ow many?
2 0, 25; s omewhere in that neighborhood .
A.
In your CV it states that you are an
Q.
amateur gunsmith?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Could you expound on that a little bit?
A.
I like to tinker, that's what I call it,
with different components of the firearms;
particularly, the MAC family. Just seeing what I
could do to make a particular firearm run. I'm not
sure how to describe it . I say amateur because I
have very limited or no machining skills whatsoever .
I like to work on them, fix my own firearms, as I
can. I take them apart and usually get them back
together.
Q.
I understand . So it sounds to me that
1279
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/091809WM.TXT
RIF
9/3 0/2009
Page 6 of27
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0015
you've never been to, perhaps, an armory school?

A.
No, sir.
Q.
Or a gunsmithing school?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Have you had any sort of formal training
in firearms?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Now, you said you focus on the MAC series
of guns?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Have you built any of your own guns?
A.
Other than a black powder series of
firearms, no.
Q.
So you don't purchase kits or anything
like that?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Have you ever designed a gun?
A.
I collaborated with Len on the BM-3000.
Q.
What is the BM-3000?
A.
It's the RPD series machinegun adapted to
operate off the Mll submachine gun.
When did you collaborate with Len?
Q.
Early in 2003. I think it was in April
A.
when we started that little venture.
Q.
What was the nature of the work you did in
collaboration with Mr. Savage?
A.
Coming up with sketches on how to fit
things together and then see if they were feasible.
Q.
Forgive me if I'm -- I don't mean to be
insulting, but what did you bring to that given that
you've stated you don't have any formal or, really,
you said you're not much of a machinist or you don't
have any training?
A.
An idea. In looking at the two systems, I
had an idea that they could be married together. I
could lay that out on paper, but that's about the
greatest extent of my skill is laying something out
on paper.
Q.
So did you kind of originate this idea and
then approach Len about that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Why did you go to Mr. Savage as opposed to
somebody else? Perhaps somebody closer?
A.
I did. Most SOTs didn't want to pick up
the project. They had no interest in undertaking it.
Q.
So it would be fair to say that Len wasn't
-- I don't mean this as an insult to Mr. Savage -Len wasn't your first choice on this?
A.
No.
Q.
How did you get in touch with Mr . Savage?
A.
I was on the Internet and basically
discovered he was building a similar semi-automatic.
He was working on a semi-automatic RPD at the time.
I contacted him. Actually, I contacted his
distributor and his distributor put me in touch with
Len.
Q.
Which distributor was this?
A.
Phil, and I can't remember his last name.
Q.
Is he with a company?
A.
I believe he owns his own. It was on the
Internet and I contacted him about the RPD, and he
1280
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 7 of27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
forwarded me to Len.
Q.
What has become of that project?
A.
It was deemed a machinegun in and of
itself by the ATF and at that point shelved.
Q.
Does Phil Thompson ring a bill?
A.
Phil Thompson ... The name rings a bell,
but I couldn't put a face to him.
Q.
So you don't know if that's the Phil that
you spoke to?
A.
It might be. It was a long time ago. I
only spoke to him once or twice, and since then I've
been dealing with Len.
Q.
So this device, I'll call it the RPO for
short, that you and Len collaborated on, that was
submitted to the Firearms Technology Branch?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When was that?
A.
I'm going to guess. It was a long time
ago. Late 2003, fall of 2003, I think was the first
submission, but I'm not sure.
Q.
Let me ask you that. Why was it submitted
at that time?
A.
It was a radical departure from what most
people would normally see on an Mll. And considering
it's the firearms industry, it's better to be overly
21
22
23
24
25
0016
cautious than to step out and, you know, ask for
1
2
forgiveness for breaking the rules.
Q.
Was it a prototype that you submitted?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0017
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.
Len submitted it, yes.

Do you recall, was the item submitted
actually the prototype or was it a sketch or design?
A.
Prototype.
Q.
So at that point, it had not been
submitted because it was required under law to be
submitted?
A.
From us?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Well, I was talking with Len . We thought
it would be prudent to make sure that we were above
board.
Q.
Do you recall the name of the firearms
enforcement officer who classified the device?
A.
Not off the top of my head.
Q.
Were you in agreement with that
classification?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Why were you not in agreement with that
classification?
A.
As I recall and I'm going from memory, I
believe it was classified as a machinegun because it
Q.
was readily restorable was what the final

classification came down to. And, in my opinion, I
thought it would take an exceptional amount of work
to restore it to an independent firearm.
Q.
Now, based on that classification, did
either you or Len work in conjunction to make
modifications to the prototype?
A.
It went back and forth with ATF on several
submissions.
Q.
Well, I'm guessing from what you told me
that there was never a submission put forth that the
ATF was satisfied with?
1281
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 8 of27
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0018
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
There was one submission that the ATF was
satisfied with . It was classified as a non-gun for a
period of several months, and then the ATF reversed
its posit i on .
Q.
What was your feeling when that happened?
A.
I didn't understand the reversal. It
didn't make sense to me.
Q.
Did you and Len have any sort of financial
agreement regarding this RPO?
A.
The original, I commissioned on . We had
created a $3,000 original conunission and if he could
make a production run out of it, the production run
would be his.
Q.
A.
So you would get $3,000

No, I pay him 3,000 -Q.
I see.
A.
-- for the initial adventure and for the
first production model. And if he could make a
production run out of it, it's all his .
Q.
So you were not looking at any perspective
profits for them?
A.
No .
Q.
Have you ever submitted anything else to
FTB?
A.
Myself?
Q.
Yes .
MR. MONROE: I'll object to the extent
that he said he hasn't submitted anything.
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) Do you have any
disagreement with the policies of the FTB?
A.
I have a disagreement. In my industry,
when it comes to testing procedures, they're
published, they're established, et cetera . And I
thought that we were above board with the de sign .
I'm not familiar with FTB's testing procedures to the
e xtent that I'd like to be. I disagree with the
procedures they're using.
Q.
Can you elaborate specifically what you
0019
1
disagree with?
2
A.
From my standpoint, I l o ok at the standard
3
MAC upper receiver and I look at other upper
4
receivers that operate on the same principals. We
5
come up with a receiver that duplicates the
principals and the operating procedures and have a
6
7
different classification.
8
Q.
So would it be fair to say, based o n what
9
you've testified to earlier in regards to your own
industry, it seems that your disagreement, and please
10
11
correct me if I'm mischaracterizing this, is that FTB
12
doesn't have , I guess, stated po lic ies f or
13
classification; is that correct?
14
A.
Not stated or not stated very clearl y.
15
Q.
You think what they've stated is t oo
16
vague?
17
A.
Vague or misunderstanding them .
18
Q.
Have you ever received any legal training?
A.
No, sir.
19
20
Q.
I assume you have not been t o law school?
21
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Have you ever classified a firearm for the
22
23
government under the NFA?
24
A.
No, sir.
1282
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 9 of27
25
Q.
How about the GCA, the Gun Control Act?
0020
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0021
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0022
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Have you classified a firearm for any
other regulatory body?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
I see from your CV that you previously
testified as an expert in the case of Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation versus the City of
Philadelphia; is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did you testify in deposition or trial?
A.
Yes; both.
Q.
Both depositio n and trial?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you tell us briefly what that case was
about?
A.
It was about the replacement of a bridge
structure in the downtown Philadelphia area . The
replacement was impacting a number of city-owned
facilities. There was also a disagreement on
ownership of the structure itself.
My part of the case was narrowed down to
the need for the replacement and also the minimizing
impacts to the different facilities involved.
Q.
You were brought in in your capacity as a
structural engineer, correct?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Have you ever been retained as an expert
in any other field?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Have you ever been deposed before o ther
than that case?
A.
No, sir .
Q.
Have you ever testified in a courtroom
proceeding before -A.
No , s i r .
Q.
-- other than that case?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Have you ever been retained as a
consultant on a case?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Who first contacted yo u abo ut testifying
in this case?
A.
Mr . Savage.
Q.
When did he contact yo u?
A.
I really don't know off the top of my
head . He contacted me shortly after or during the
seizure proceeding that there co uld possibly be legal
action. I think it was shortly after the seizure.
Q.
At the time Mr . Savage first contacted
you, had you already been aware of the item -A.
Yes .
Q.
-- we'll call the defendant, that he had
designed?
A.
Yes.
Q.
How had you become aware of that?
A.
The design was basically a f ollow up or an
improvement on the RPO series fir earm. I had been
following this development and was hoping that it
eventually would come to market.
Q.
Did you collaborate on the design of the
1283
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 10 of27
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
defendant with Mr. Savage?

A.
Minimally .
Q.
In what capacity?
A.
Mostly cosmetics, but attachment of the
two receivers together and making them a usable
system . Also, the idea of the short barrel for a
Hollywood effect.
Q.
You said Hollywood effect?
A.
That's what I call it.
Q.
What do you mean by that?
A.
Muzzle flash.
Q.
I see. So you want the big flash?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you have any financial investment in
his development of the defendant?
0023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
No, sir.
Did you have any potential compensation
coming your way if he was able to market the
defendant?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
At the point that Mr. Savage first
contacted you in terms of your -- well, let me back
up. Prior to being contacted by Mr. Savage, did you
have any determination on what the defendant was as
either a semi-automatic short-barrel rifle or a
machinegun or anything else?
A.
I thought, in my opinion, that it was a
firearm accessory or at most an AOW. I did not agree
with the firearm classification that he was seeking.
Q.
When he first contacted you, did he tell
you anything that changed your opinion of that?
A.
I didn't change my opinion until, or
modified my opinion, until I actually saw the
defendant being demonstrated at the Coweta range.
Q.
Were you at any point told what issue you
were to render an expert opinion on?
A.
I don't know if you necessarily say asked.
There was a conversation back and forth about my
ability to contribute to the case and my opinion;
being an amateur gunsmith. I could look at testing
Q.
0024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
procedures and see if the testing procedures make

sense to me or not.
Q.
So is it fair to say your involvement as
an expert was to oversee the testing procedures that
FTB used in classifying firearms?
A.
Offer my opinion on them, yeah.
Q.
What were you going to base that opinion
on?
A.
Based on basic texts that I use on a
regular basis .
Q.
Have you ever studied the manner in which
a body other than FTB classifies firearms?
A.
Material and testing facilities for
different state agencies.
Q.
And in relation to the classification o f
firearms?
A.
Nothing.
Q.
What do you mean nothing?
A.
I have not been involved in any other
classification of firearms as far as education,
introduction, or et cetera.
Q.
I'm sorry, I missed something there. Did
1284
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 11 of27
23
24
25
0025
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you say that you study how particular states classify

firearms?
A.
No . No .
Q.
You did not?
A.
My area of expert -- you know, where I
studied or worked with other agencies have been
material and testings labs for other state agenc ies
such as Department of Transportation, SHAs; no thing
involving firearms.
Q.
So it's all related to your -A.
Structures field.
Q.
-- instruction as a structural enginee r?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is an SHA?
A.
State Highway Administration .
Q.
You've never studied how any government
body
be it state, foreign, federal -- classifies
firearms?
A.
No, sir .
Q.
Let's go back. Let me ask you this: When
did you first see the defendant in person?
A.
At the Coweta range.
Q.
Prior to that, had you been provided with
any drawings? Schematics? Photographs?
A.
Descriptions, photos, and a few videos.
Q.
What was depicted in the videos that you
watched?
A.
The defendant being test fired with a
0026
short-barrel option on it.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
Who was test firing it?
A.
One of Len's friends. I couldn' t t e ll you
his name.
Q.
What photographs were you provided with?
A.
Digital photographs e-mailed t o me fr om
Len's shop.
Q.
Did the photo graphs depict the defendant
in a static form or was it -A.
Static.
Q.
Static . Now, the video that you watched,
do you know where that was recorded?
A.
It was on a shooting range.
Q.
Do you know when that video was recorded?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
When were you provided with it?
A.
I would say, I'm going t o guess, probably
two months prior to the f o rfeiture pro ceedings, maybe
less.
Q.
Was it before o r after Len asked yo u t o
participate in this case?
A.
Before.
Q.
Before. Did s ome thing yo u saw in the test
videos that were provided to you by Len change the
opinion of what the defendant is in terms of its
25
0027
classification?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
MR. MONROE: Let me just jump in f o r a

second, Mr. Viscomi. I thought you were talking
only about his CV. Of course, you know, you're
welcome to ask questions about anything . But if
you're invading Mr. Foster's province, then when
Mr. Foster starts asking questions, I won't
allow him to ask questions about the same
1285
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 12 of27
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
things .
MR. VISCOMI: Let me just see . I'm not
trying to invade his province . I guess I'm just
trying to follow them where they lead .
Q.
(By Mr . Viscomi) All right . Well, to
that end, I don't want to stray too far because,
again, as Mr. Monroe pointed out, I don't want to
stray off of your CV too far . Now, you've prepared a
report in thi s case, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And that's the report I've been provided
with?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When did you prepare this report?
A.
The week following the shooting
demonstration at the Coweta range.
Q.
Did anybody give you instructions o n what
25
0028
1
they wanted in
A.
No .
2
Q.
Did
3
4
report?
5
A.
No,
Q.
Let
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the report?
anybody assist you in preparing the
sir.
me back up. Did you discuss any
drafts of the report with anybody?
A.
I was asked to submit a report as soon as
possible. I did forward a preliminary draft to
Mr. Monroe and then followed up with a final draft.
Q.
Was your draft substantively different
from your final report?
A.
It did not have the attachment photos, and
I believe I made some minor granunatical changes; but
substantially, no.
Q.
Your conclusio ns were the same in both the
draft and the final produc t?
A.
Yes, sir .
Q.
Are you being paid f or your partici pation
in this case?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What are you being paid?
A.
At this point, I'm billing f o r in-office
at $110 an hour, daily rate o f a thousand a day. I
have been basically collec ting invoices, but have not
25
0029
1
been paid at this point.
Who do you expec t t o pay yo u?
2
Q.
3
A.
Hopefully, Mr. Savage will be able t o .
If he's not?
4
Q.
I don't worry abo ut how to handle that or
5
A.
6
when we get to that bridge.
7
Q.
So you don't have a contingency paye r
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
who's out there?

A.
No.
Q.
Do you know how much yo u've invo ice d s o
far?
A.
No, sir . I'd have to pull it up on my
computer to take a look. I've let this sit for a
while, because I don't want to run up Len's bill .
Q.
Are you also r e ceiving compensation for
your expenses?
A.
I've been keeping track of expenses as
well, yes.
MR . VISCOMI: Thank you, Mr. Messenger. I
have no further questions of you at this point.
1286
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/09 l 809WM.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 13 of27
21
22
23
24
25
If you want to take a break for five minutes, we

can. Otherwise, I'll let Mr. Foster take over.
(Recess from 10:03 a.m. to 10 : 18 p.m . )
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR . FOSTER :
0030
l
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Mr. Messenger, my name is Harry Foster.
I'm an attorney with ATF and special assistant United
States attorney for this case. At this point, I'm
going to talk with you about the substance of this
case; the real meat and potatoes.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Now, Mr. Viscomi earlier asked you when
you first learned about the defendant, and it was
after Mr. Savage had submitted it for classification;
is that correct?
A.
We had had a few conversations prior to
its submission when he was actually working on it.
Q.
Now, do you consider Mr. Savage a friend?
A.
Yes.
Q.
At this point, do you guys just sort of,
you know, shop talk so to speak -- hey, what do you
think of this? What do you think of that -- so to
speak?
A.
Yes .
So he'll call you up? Because it sounds
Q.
like you're sort of a self-taught MAC expert; is that
correct?
Self taught, yes.
A.
So he'll call you up and say, hey, what do
Q.
you think o f this, what do you think of that?
0031
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Yes.
Q.
So you had learned about it prior t o
submission?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Do you know approximately when you and
Mr. Savage first started talking about this idea?
A.
No, I don't. I don't even know if I could
give you a ballpark guess on when we started, you
know, talking about this particular item .
Q.
Just out of curiosity, I know you had sai d
with the -- I think it was the BM-3000?
A.
Yes.
Q.
That was your concept?
A.
Yes.
Q.
I've never designed a firearm myself, so
when you come up with an idea to do this, how long
does it sort of take from the time you put pen to
paper and then from the time -- well, pen to paper?
MR. MONROE: I'm going to object,
Mr. Foster. I think this is getting back to the
CV issues.
MR. FOSTER: Well, you know, I'll strike
that one and I'll just move right on then.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) So you had received
advance knowledge that Mr. Savage was working on the
0032
1
2
3
4
5
6
defendant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what did he tell you about the
defendant?
A.
That he was working on a new platform for
a larger caliber, a more economic caliber, on the
1287
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/09 l 809WM. TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 14 of27
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0033
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0034
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
7.62x54R, and it would be more for the MAC-10 series

firearm rather than the MAC-11 or Mll series that I
had originally come up with.
Q.
Okay. Now, your design was based on an
RPD, and the defendant was based on what?
A.
A PKM.
Q.
What are the basic differences? You don't
have to go nitty-gritty, but what would you think are
the main differences in a PK and RPO?
A.
Above and beyond caliber?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Recoil system. The mechanics of the PK,
I'm not what you call an expert in. So I really
would have to be tearing one apart to look at it.
Q.
So you're not very familiar with PKs,
then, is what I'm hearing?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, based on your experience with the
BM-3000, when Mr. Savage explained to you the
defendant, did you think that FTB would approve it?
A.
Whenever he said he came up with a system
where it would not require a recoil system in the
butt stock, I thought it would be an approvable
system.
Q.
You did?
A.
(Witness nods head in the affirmative.)
Q.
Okay. So you talked with Mr. Savage prior
to the submission?
A.
Uh-huh.
Q.
You said you viewed videos. Was that on
the Internet or was that something he sent to you?
A.
Something he sent to me.
Q.
Something he sent to you. After this,
what was your next contact with Mr. Savage with
regards to the defendant?
A.
We had routine phone conversations back
and forth just as friends and touched base on his
progress. I was mainly interested in, you know, what
the classification came back as because I do have an
interest, you know, for a personal purchase. So I
was following that progress.
Q.
So you would buy one of those if it was
approved?
A.
I believe so, yes.
Q.
Now, the design process during which you
had these conversations with Mr. Savage, do you have
any idea what period of time that occurred over?
A.
No, I do not.
Q.
Was it weeks? Days? Months?
A.
Months.
Q.
Months? Okay. So the first time you
examined the defendant personally, where was that?
A.
Coweta Sheriff's Range.
Q.
That was at the June 10th
A.
Yes.
Q.
I believe it was the June 10th meeting?
A.
I believe so, yes.
Q.
When you examined the item at the range,
what did you do?
A.
I watched the demonstration and then it
was dismantled a little bit -- the internal
components -- and compared to the RPO that was
1288
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/09 l 809WM. TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 15 of27
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0035
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
brought by the ATF, and then duplicated the same test

results afterwards on other systems.
Q.
Okay. I just wanted to clarify . You said
the RPD provided by ATF. Did you mean the PK?
A.
Yeah, the PK. I'm sorry.
Q.
That's fine. I just want e d to make sure
you were correc t on the record. Did you take any
dimensions or any, I guess, measurements of the
defendant?
A.
Yes. We did take measurements of the bolt
rails and the bolt itself t o see if a full-auto bolt
could fit in the defendant.
Q.
What did yo u determine there?
A.
The bolt used in the defendant and the
bolt rails were from a semi-auto . My findings at the
range was that the bolt and bolt rails were a
different dimension .
Q.
Now, when you say bolt, are you referring
to the actual bolt or are you referring to the bolt
carrier?
A.
Not being that familiar with the PK, I
always just assumed it was the bolt. I wouldn't be
able to tell you the difference between the two.
Q.
So you're not actually sure whether what
you were looking at was the bolt carrier or the bolt
or both?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Or neither at this point?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So you said you took dimensions of the
rails. Do you know what those readings were of the
measurements?
25
0036
1
A.
Not off the top of my head, no . The
2
semi-auto or the ones t hat were in, or at that time
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0037
1
2
3
4
the bolt came out of the defendant, had a larger slot

cut in the bolt itself. The rails were a different
dimension in the receiver. There was a difference in
them .
Q.
Is that difference a critical difference
between a semi-automatic PK and a fully-automatic PK?
A.
The full-aut o bolt wouldn't fit. That was
really the only finding that I f ound .
Q.
Do you know if there' s a specific reason
why semi-automatic PK receivers have an increased
rail size?
A.
I assume it' s so that a full-auto bolt
can't function in the semi-auto.
Q.
So that rail size would be something that
would be a critical element of whether or not a
receiver was semi-automatic or full-automatic?
A.
I would think so , yes.
Q.
Is there any reason why you didn ' t include
that information in your report?
A.
From my standpoint at the time , not being
an expert in PK, the semi-auto and the full-auto bolt
outwardly appear quite similar. And I could see it
very easy, for me at least , not make a distinction .
Q.
Don ' t you think that someone who is an
expert in PK would be a better witness in this case
than someone who admits is not an expert in PKs?
MR . MONROE : Object to the form of the
1289
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 16 of27
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
quest i on. Answer if you can.

THE WITNESS: 8~ far as the PK, I'm more
interested in the testing procedures used on the
defendant . Now, an expert in PK, I really am
not an expert in that area .
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) Okay. Do you consider
yourself an expert in the testing procedures?
A.
In general, I have knowledge of testing
procedures. I'm hoping I can add some benefit to t he
case for the defendant.
Q.
But specifically, do you consider yoursel f
a n expert in testing procedures of firearms?
A.
Firearms?
Q.
Yes.
A.
I can't make that claim, no, sir.
Q.
Okay . Do you know what the definition of
a firearm is under the Gun Control Act?
A.
I've read the definition. I have a vague
understanding of it; a layman's understanding of it .
Q.
A layman's understanding?
A.
Yes .
0038
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Can you just sort of paraphrase what that
definition is?
MR. MONROE: I object to the extent it
calls for a legal conclusion. You can answer
the question.
MR. FOSTER: I'm just asking him to state
what the definition is.
MR. MONROE: Sarne objection. Answer if
you can.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR . MONROE: If you don't know the answer,
that's okay.
THE WITNESS: The best item I wou l d have
would be the portion of the f irearrn that
attaches the barrel bolt re coil system .
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) Do you know what the
definition of a firearm under the National Firearms
Act is?
A.
Again, it would be a ve ry -- actually, I
would probably be intertwining my layman's
understanding of the two. It wo uld be the same
answer.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
Q.
I'm going to read t o you the definition of
0039
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
firearms under 92l(a), and I just want you to hear it

and say if you think that this is what you believe is
correct.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Title 18 United States Code Section
921 (a) ( 3) says: The term firearm means:
(A) , any
weapon including a starter gun which will or is
designed to or may be readily converted to expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive; (B), the
frame or receiver of any such weapon ; (C), any
firearm muffler or firearm silence r; or (0), any
destructive device.
I'm go ing to stop there. It goes on to
exclude antique firearms at this point.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Actually, I'll just finish, I'm s orry.
1290
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 17 of27
17
18
Let me just finish: Such term does not include an

antique firearm.
Is this your basic understanding of what a
firearm is under the Gun Control Act?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay. Now, I'm going to read to you the
definition of a firearm under the National Firearms
Act, and I want you to just tell me if that is your
understanding of the National Firearms Act firearm.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0040
At this time I want to read Title 26
1
United States Code Section 5845(a). Firearm. The
2
term firearm means:
(1), a shotgun having a barrel
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0041
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0042
1
or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2), a

weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon has been
modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches
or barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in
length; (3), a rifle having a barrel or barrels of
less than 16 inches in length; (4), a weapon made
from a rifle if such weapon has been modified has an
overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5), any
other weapon as defined in section (e); (6), a
machinegun; (7), any silencer as defined in Section
921 of Title 18 United States Code; and (8), a
destructive device. The term firearm shall not
include an antique firearm or any other device other
than a machinegun or destructive device, which,
although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by
reason of date of its manufacture, value, design, and
other characteristics is primarily a collector's item
and is not likely to be used as a weapon.
Is that your basic understanding what a
National Firearms Act firearm is?
MR. MONROE: Counsel, are you asking him
if you read the law correctly? I'm not clear
what the question is.
MR. FOSTER: I'm just asking him if that
is his understanding of what a National Firearms
Act firearm is.
MR. MONROE: Well, then I'll object. You
already asked him what his understanding is and
he's already testified to it.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) We'll move on.
Mr. Messenger, does the defendant meet either of
these definitions?
MR. MONROE: Objection. Call for a legal
conclusion. Answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: Answer if I can?
MR. MONROE: If you can.
THE WITNESS: After reviewing the testing
procedures, I'm under the opinion that it
functions similar to other already available
firearms on the market. And that's where I drew
my conclusion that, you know, if A is a legal
item and this functions under the same
principal, then it should also be a legal item.
Getting into the definitions of what part is or
is not a firearm, I try to stay away from.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Now, you just said that
it's similar to other firearms available?
what you --
Is that
1291
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 18of27
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0043
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Of their caliber conversion units and
upper receivers.
Q.
So is it a firearm?
A.
I don ' t believe, no .
Q.
So it's your expert opinion that it's not
a firearm?
A.
Correct .
MR. MONROE: Objection . He's testified
that he's an expert in testing procedures; not
in firearms .
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Does the report conclude
t hat the defendant is not a firearm?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay . Are you a ware that Historic Arms
filed an ATF form registering the defendant as a
firearm?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
So are you incorrect in your report' s
conclusion that it's a non-firearm or was Historic
Arms incorrect in filing that form stating that it
was a firearm?
MR. MONROE: Object to the form of the
question . Answer if you can .
THE WITNESS: Len filed the report or his
Form 2 before I had a chance to review the
defendant . I disagreed with the classification
that he gave in his Form 2.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) So you believe that
Mr. Savage made an incorrect statement on his Form 2 ?
A.
I'm not sure . It's a short -- the
s ubmitted sample has a short barrel. I'm not sure if
it was incorrect or not. My opinion is different
than his .
Q.
So you disagree with Mr . Savage , then , i n
that instance?
A.
Yes .
So when you e xami ne d t he defenda nt at the
Q.
Coweta range, can you tell me the basic things that
you saw, the basic components that were before you ?
A.
The defendant itself, the bolt carrier
recoil system, and the lower that captured the re coil
system. Tho se are the primary components that I was
looking at and compared to the PK. I, not being an
expert in the PK, I f o cused more on what was used to
get the defendant t o fire, what components were us e d
to make the defendant fire.
Q.
So f o rgive me, did you say that the
defendant has a receiver or does not have a re ceive r?
0044
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A.
Well, I've been t o ld I use t he terms
incorrectly. I always refer to an upper and l owe r
receiver on the same firearm and then refer t o a
registered receiver as the registered c omponent.
I know that's an incorrect term in the
firearms industry, but I have it in mind the uppe r
portion or the defendant mount e d on a registe red MAC
receiver . And the n, also, I was looking at the
defendant, the upper porti on with the chain
tensioning bolt and backer plates.
Q.
So you sa i d that what you saw is wha t you
call an uppe r receiver?
A.
Yeah, a n upper recei ve r; my terms .
Q.
Your t e rms , not the terms that ATF and FTB
1292
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 19 of27
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0045
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0046
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0047
uses?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Would it surprise you to learn that what
you called the upper receiver is the registered
receiver, so to speak, as you described it under ATF,
what they consider a firearm?
MR. MONROE: What device are you referring
to?
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) The defendant .
A.
It surprises me.
Q.
It does surprise you?
A.
Well, I was surprised when that
classification was given.
Q.
Now, I know you say that you're not an
expert in PKs, but do you know what the receiver is
on a PK?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
You do not. I have what we'll call just
Object 1 . We won't enter it into the record at this
point or at all . Have you ever seen anything like
Object 1 before?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Do you know what that is?
A.
That would be the upper receiver of the
PK .
Q.
Now, to your knowledge, is that a
semi-automatic or a fully-automatic receiver?
A.
Without comparing it to the rail sizes of
another unit, I wouldn't be able to tell you off the
top of my head.
Q.
Do you know what the technical differences
are between a fully-automatic PK and a semi-automatic
PK?
A.
Above and beyond the rail size, I believe
the semi-auto , I was told, has a blocking bar, which
I believe is t hat piece here.
Q.
What is generally the purpose of a
blocking bar?
A.
I would be making an assumption .
Q.
What is your understanding of the purpo s e
for a b l ocking bar?
A.
To prevent a sear engagement .
Q.
Okay. When you examined the defendant at
the Coweta range, did you no te if there was a
blocking bar?
A.
The defendant, the entire lower po rtio n
was remo ved .
Q.
So there was no blocking bar?
A.
No .
Q.
Okay. You testified that you noted that
there was a different side rail, but that side rail,
you took measurements, but you do not know what tho s e
measurements we re?
A.
Not off the top of my head, no .
Q.
And you did not inc lude that in your
report?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, you said that the defendant used what
you described as a modified PK bolt, but you weren't
sure whether or not that was a modified bolt or
whether it was actually a modified bolt carrier or
1293
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 20 of27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
b o th?
A.
Correct.
Q.
What modific atio ns did yo u see?
A.
The slots f o r the rails. I believe the
length of the bolt was slightly different. I'm not
sure if the length was different. I know the slots
were of a different size . That was the main item I
noted.
Q.
And this is the slo t on the left-hand
side?
A.
Yes, sir .
Q.
Now, why would s omeone modify the
left-hand side slot on the b olt carrier or bolt,
whichever one it is?
A.
My understanding would be t o prevent a
full-auto bolt from being installed .
Q.
Well, I'm actually on the bolt. How would
that prevent a full-auto bolt from being installed?
A.
The rails in the full auto being smaller.
Q.
I guess I wasn't c lear . On the
defendant's modified bo lt, you said that the
left-hand side had be en modified; is that correct?
A.
I believe it was the left.
Q.
How had it been modified?
A.
The slots f or the rails were widened .
0048
1
Q.
2
rail?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0049
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Why would someo ne widen the slots for the
A.
I would be making an assumption. Off the
top, I couldn't tell you.
Q.
What is yo ur assumptio n?
A.
That it wo uld be to prevent
MR. MONROE: Objectio n. Calls f o r
speculation.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) What is your
understanding of why someone would modify, widen that
rail?
A.
To prevent full-auto components fr om b e ing
ins t alled .
Q.
Was the bolt that you saw a modified
full-auto bolt?
A.
I knew it was a modified bolt. I believe
that later it came out that it was a modified semi
bolt .
Q.
When you say the defendant was test fired,
did it fire automatically?
A.
With the added chain tension bolt and
plate, it fired full auto and also whenever it was
attached to a registered MAC-10 recei ver.
Q.
So then the bolt that was in there was
capable of a full-automatic fire?
A.
With a lot of modifi cation to the ext e rnal
unit.
Q.
How did those modifications allow it t o
fire automatically?
A.
It captured the recoil system .
Q.
No, no. The modifications on the b olt
themselves .
A.
Oh, the bolt?
Q.
Yes, sir.
A.
The modification of the bolt, I co ul d no t
tell you.
Q.
So what I ' m hearing is you r eally don' t
1294
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 21 of27
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
k!fOw the di ff e r ences between the PK semi-automatic

and full automatic, which is sort of the crux of this
case, correct?
MR . MONROE: Objection. He's already
testified t hat he's not an expert on PKs .
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Would it surprise you to
learn that the reason the l eft rails were modified on
that bolt was to allow a fully-automatic bolt to
function in a semi-automatic receive r ?
A.
I would be surprised, yes .
Q.
Mr . Messenger , a t this time I want to put
out Object 2 on the table . Do you know what this is?
A.
It's either an AR-15 or an M16 lower
24
25
0050
receiver.
1
Q.
2
two?
3
A.
4
Q.
5
A.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0051
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Do you know the d ifference between the
Not directly , no , sir.

You do not?
No.
Q.
Okay .
A.
I'm going to assume it's an M16 because
it's stamped auto.
Q.
But as far as physical characteristics,
you do not know the difference?
A.
No , sir, I don't know one and never took
one apart .
Q.
In order for a firearm to be classified a
firearm, must it fire?
MR . MONROE: Objection. Calls for a legal
THE WITNESS: I've been told no, but
that's the best answer I can give . I've never
truly understood all that.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) You said that you tinker
wi t h MAC machineguns; is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
I assume you own a MAC machinegun?
A.
Yes .
The MAC machinegun, what is the registered
Q.
part of the MAC machinegun ?
The lower receiver.
A.
Q.
The lower receiver is a f ire arm itself; is
that correct?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Okay. Just like the receiver here of the
PK is a firearm itself?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So then you'll agree with me that this, as
it sits, is a firearm?
A.
Yes .
MR. MONROE: Object to the form of the
question .
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) Is this a firearm? Is
Object 1 a firearm?
MR . MONROE: Objection . Calls for a legal
THE WITNESS: If it's the registered
component, I say yes.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Okay. And the defendant
contains basically a piece similar to Object l; is
that correct?
A.
A heavily modified piece, yes.
1295
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 22 of27
25
Q.
What were those modifications?
0052
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
About right here, this whole lower unit
was removed, the whole bottom section was removed,
and the upper portion of the MAC adapted into it.
Q.
What is the purpose of that bottom section
where you were saying was removed?
A.
Without knowing a lot about the PK, I
really couldn't tell you. I would be making some
grand assumptions.
Q.
Okay . But that area, to your knowledge,
based on your limited knowledge, that area would not
be the area that holds the fro nt trunnion, which
allows for the barrel t o attach?
A.
No.
Q.
And that area also is not the area that
would be whe re the rear trunnion is attached?
A.
I believe not, yeah.
Q.
And that area is not an area that's used
to contain the bolt?
A.
I'm not sure if it does or not . That
would be an area that I would question not being
familiar with it .
Q.
So you're not sure whether or not the
defendant was a firearm or not?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So then the defendant may have been a
25
0053
firearm?
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
I'm not sure if it was or not.
Q.
So then your report is actually incorrect
because you stated it was not a firearm, but now
you're saying that it may have actually been a
firearm?
A.
My report was c omparing o ther systems that
functioned in the same manner. That's where I drew
my conclusion .
Q.
But is your report incorrect?
MR . MONROE: Asked and answered.
MR . FOSTER: I disagree. He said, My
report was based on this. He didn't say whether
yes or no it was correct.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Was your report's
conclusion correct?
A.
I still think the report is correct
because -- well, I would be making a conclusion
outside of my area o f knowledge. This is a
registered component. I'm not sure if the modified
version is a registered component since it doesn't
function as it was intended.
Q.
Are you familiar with the destruction
requirements to take a PK receiver from being a PK
receiver into just nothing?
25
0054
A.
No, sir.
1
2
Q.
So then you truly don't know whethe r o r
3
not the modifications made to it were enough to take
it out of the realm of being a firearm?
4
5
A.
I guess s o .
Q.
So then your conclusion that it was a
6
7
8
9
10
non-fireman is based on no legal knowledge or no

knowledge of destruction practices of PK firearms?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Going to what ATF did attach, could you
1296
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/091809WM. TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 23 of27
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0055
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0056
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
explain what ATF attached to the defendant to make it

fire automatically?
A.
They used a piece of aluminum plate that
was placed over the rear of the upper, wrapped a
chain around the plate to hold it in place, the chain
went around the forward section -- which I believe
was a handgrip or a gas cylinder -- and a tensioning
bolt was used to draw the chain up tight.
That worked at capturing the recoil, and
then the unit was held against a set of sandbags, and
the charging handle substituted as the trigger
mechanism.
Q.
In your report, did you not say that the
sandbags would be -- you would have to include them
as part of the test?
A.
I believe so, because it was the anchorage
point for the firearm.
Q.
Do you think there's no way that firearm
could be fired without sandbags?
A.
With the open bottom, it would be
dangerous.
Q.
Could it be done?
Could it be done? I suppose on some level
A.
it could. I would not recommend it.
Q.
Would it surprise you to know that it has
been done?
A.
Well, okay.
Q.
Is whether or not a firearm safely fires
automatically a requirement of being a firearm?
MR. MONROE: Objection calls for a legal
THE WITNESS: I have been t old and I
understand that, no , i t is not a requirement.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 was marked for
identifi cat ion.)
Q.
(By Mr. Foster ) I ' m going to intr oduce
into the record a copy of your report.
Mr . Messenger , will you please look at Exhibit 1.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Does this look familiar to you?
A.
Yes.
Can you tell me what that is?
That's the report that I prepared, yes.
Q.
Now, you stated that you're not a firearms
e xpert in classifications?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You're not a PK machinegun expert?
A.
Correct.
Q.
But you're an expert in general
classifications; is that correct? What was your
expertise?
A.
Testing procedures .
Q.
General
General testing.
A.
Q.
Could you turn to the Conclusion of your
r eport .
A.
Yes.
Q.
Where in there do you make a conclusion
regarding the testing procedures?
A.
I did not.
Q.
What was your conclusion r e ga r di ng ?
Based on the test us ed, t he defendant
A.
Q.
A.
1297
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/09 l 809WM. TXT
RIF
9/3 0/2009
Page 24 of27
23
24
25
0 057
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0058
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
operated in a similar fashion, the same fashion , as

ot her legall y obtainable i t ems on t he ma rke t.
Q.
There ' s a speci f i c s e ction that has a
bfilded area.
A.
Yes .
Q.
Could you read that sentence?
A.
Let ' s see . "Based on the comparative
results of these tests, the Historic Arms 54RCCS
Caliber Conversion Unit is not a fir e arm or a
machinegun i n and of itself ."
Q.
So that sentence , which seems to be sort
o f the crux of your conclusion -- is that correct?
A.
Yes .
Q.
-- but you're making a conclusion about
something which you ' re not an expert on or you ' ve
testified you're not an expert on , correct?
MR. MONROE: Objection . Asked and
answered.
Q.
(By Mr . Foster} You can answer even
though he's objected . His object i on is noted on the
record.
A.
Okay . I drew my conclusion based on the
testing procedures used.
Q.
But you didn't cite those testing
procedures i n your Conclusion?
A.
Correct .
Q.
And the conclusion is not that the testing
p rocedures were flawed, it ' s that this is not a
firearm, correct?
A.
Correct .
MR. FOSTER: Let ' s ta ke a few minutes '
break here. We're very close to wrapping up, I
think.
MR. MONROE: Okay.
(Recess from 10 : 53 a.m. to 11:10 p.m.)
MR. FOSTER: At this time Mr. Messenger,
we have no further questions for you.
MR. MONROE: I don't have any questions.
(Deposition concluded at 11:10 a . m.)
(Pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and/or O.C.G.A.
9-ll-30(e), signature of the witness has been
reserved.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0059
INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS
Examination
Page
5
6
Cross-Examination by Mr. Viscomi

Cross-Examination by Mr. Foster
3
29
7
8
1298
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/282987/091809WM. TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 25 of27
'
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
10
11
Plaintiff 1 s
Exhibit
Description
Page
12
1
13
14
15
Report
55
(Original Exhibit 1 has been attached to the

original transcript.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0060
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
C E R T I F I C A T E
STATE OF GEORGIA:
COUNTY OF FULTON:
I hereby certify that the foregoing
transcript was taken down, as stated in the
caption, and the questions and answers thereto
were reduced to typewriting under my directi on;
that the foregoing pages 1 through 58 represent
a true, complete, and correct transcript of the
evidence given upon said hearing, and I further
certify that I am not of kin or co unsel to the
parties in the case; am not in the regular
employ of counsel for any of said parties; nor
am I in any way interested in the result of said
case .
This, the 18th day of September, 2009.
19
20
21
YOLANDA R. NARCISSE, CCR-B-2445
22
23
24
25
0061
1
2
COURT REPORTER DISCLOSURE

[ORIGINAL ON FILE)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Pursuant to Article 8 . B. of the Rules and Regulations

of the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial
Council of Georgia which states: "Each court reporter
shall tender a disclosure form at the time of the
taking of the deposition stating the arrangements
made for the reporting services of the certified
court reporter, by the certified court reporter, the
court reporter's employer, or the referral source for
the deposition, with any party to the litigation,
counsel to the parties or other entity. Such form
shall be attached to the deposition transcript," I
make the following disclosure:
I am a Georgia Certified Court Reporter. I am
here as a representative of Huseby, Inc. Huseby,
1299
RIF
9/30/2009
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0062
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 26 of27
Inc. was contacted to provide court reporting

services for the deposition. Huseby, Inc. will not
be taking this deposition under any contract that is
prohibited by O.C.G.A. 15-14-37(a) and (b).
Huseby, Inc. has no contract/agreement to
provide reporting services with any party to the
case, any counsel in the case, or any reporter or
reporting agency from whom a referral might have been
made to cover this deposition. Huseby, Inc. will
charge its usual and customary rates to all parties
in the case, and a financial discount will not be
given to any party to this litigation.
DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM N. MESSENGER, PE, CBSI/JRN

I do hereby certify that I have read all
questions propounded to me and all answers given by
me on the 18th day of September, 2009, taken before
Yolanda R. Narcisse, and that:
1)
There are no changes noted.

The following changes are noted:
Pursuant to Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and/or the Official Code of Georgia
Annotated 9-ll-30(e), both of which read in part:
Any changes in form or substance which you desire to
make shall be entered upon the deposition ... with a
statement of the reasons given ... for making them.
Accordingly, to assist you in effecting corrections,
please use the form below:
2)
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
0063
1
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
1300
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 27 of27
Page No .
Line No.
should read :
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No .
Line No .
should read:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
If supplemental or additional pages are necessary,

please furnish same in typewriting annexed to this
deposition.
20
21
WILLIAM N. MESSENGER, PE, CBSI

22
23
24
25
Sworn to and subscribed before me,

This the
day of
, 20
Notary Public
My commission expires:
1301
RIF
9/30/2009
'\
0001
1
2
Page 1of35

ATLANTA DIVISION

Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
vs.
6
7
8
9

CONVERSION SYSTEM@
Defendant.
FILE NO.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DEPOSITION OF
ORIN B. HARDING
September 15, 200 9
1:00 p.m.
Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0002
1
2
3
On behalf o f the Plaintiff:
4
5
6
Suite 600
7
(404) 581-6036
(404) 581-6181 (Facsimile)
8
9
10
Explosives
11
Atlanta, Geo rgia 30345
12
(404) 417-2696
(404) 417-2691 (Facsimile)
13
harry . foster@atf.gov
14
15
16
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
17
(678) 362-7650
18
(770) 552-9318 (Facsimile)
19
john.monroel@earthlink . net
20
Also Pre sent :
1302
https:/ /vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/0915090H.TXT
RIF
1011 /2009
Page 2 of35
21
22
23
24
25
0003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Len Savage, Claimant; President, Historic

Arms, LLC
Mr. Mason Kingery, Firearms Technology Branch,
Explosives

of Georgia.)
ORIN B. HARDING,
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. VISCOMI:
Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Harding.
A.
Good afternoon.
Q.
My name is Jeff Viscomi with the United
States Department of Justice U.S. Attorney's Office.
For the record, in the room we have Max Kingery and
Harry Foster both from ATF; Lynn Savage of Historic
Arms; John Monroe, counsel for the claimant; Historic
Arms.
Mr. Harding, can I j ust ask you to state
your full name for the record.
It's Orin Briggs Harding.
A.
Q.
A.
703 Pleasant Drive, Greensboro, North
Carolina.
Q.
Are you currently employed?
A.
No.
Q.
Can you tell me whe re you graduated from
high school?
A.
I completed 12 years at Chapel Hill High,
failed one grade, so I had to take the GED right
after high school.
Q.
When did you complete that?
A.
November of '62.
Q.
What did you do after you completed the
GED?
A.
I was in the Air Force. My first job
after the Air Force of four years' service, I worked
for a company called Industrial Nucleonics.
Q.
If I could just stop you there for a
moment. Going back to the Air Force, can you tell us
what you r assignment was in the Air Force?
A.
Airborne navigational equipment repair.
Q.
What do those duties entail? Can you
elaborate a little bit for us?
A.
Repair electronics equi pment. I would
troubleshoot and repair.
Q.
Did you receive training for that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Could you describe what training you
received?
A.
18 weeks of basic electronics and then
0005
1
2
3
4
18 weeks of what they called SETS at the time, which

was the actual equipment.
Q.
What kind of equipment was it?
A.
I can use the technical terms; Omni,
1303
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/0915090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 3 of35
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TACAN, LORAN, SHORAN, ground search radar, airborne

radar.
Q.
So are these all primarily radar systems?
A.
No. They're navigational systems.
Q.
After you completed that assignment, were
you assigned to do something else in the Air Force?
A.
Yes. I taught electronics for a while
when I was overseas.
Q.
Did you teach the same topics?
A.
Yes, same topics.
Q.
Navigational equipment?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was that your last assignment in the Air
Force when you were on active duty?
A.
When I was on active duty.
Q.
When did you complete active duty?
A.
June the 10th, 1966.
Q.
Were you a reservist after that?
A.
Yes; but there was a break in service.
After the break in service, I went back in in '79,
and my first assignment was with a group in
Charleston Air Force Base Reserve.
Q.
When you were in Charleston, that's when
you went back in the service?
A.
That's right; as a reservist.
Q.
As a reservist. Now, in 1966, you
completed your tour of active duty?
A.
Correct.
Q.
What did you do after you left?
A.
My first job was with Industrial
Nucleonics in Columbus, Ohio. I was stationed in
Richmond, Virginia. I was only there about three
months and I went to work for Honeywell.
Q.
What did you do for the Nucleonics -A.
They had a density measuring control
system. It was in a cigarette factory, and they
monitored the density of the cigarette using a
strontium 90 beta source. From that, they controlled
the feed of the cigarette-making machine to keep the
density of the cigarette constant.
Q.
You said you did that for three months?
A.
About three months, yeah.
Q.
What did you do after that?
A.
I went to work for Honeywell.
Q.
What did you do for Honeywell?
A.
First, I was in industrial instrumentation
repair. I went to school from November of 1 66
through February of '67. Then I was in the field for
about two years as a repairman, and then I started
design work and running projects. We would sell the
installation of factories, all the instrumentation
for fac tories. My job was to see that the design was
right for the control systems and also to get them
installed properly.
Q.
This equipme nt -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
A.
You know, I ran installation crews.
Q.
Was there any particular kind of factory
that your work with Honeywell focused on? Was it
related to electronics or was it just any kind of
factory?
A.
Any kind of factory.
What would you say your duties included
Q.
1304
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/09 l 5090H. TXT
RIF
10/ 1/2009
Page 4 of35
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0008
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
besides overseeing the installation of the equipment?

A.
Well, I was responsible for the design of
the actual control systems that were installed in the
factory, be it pressure temperature, whatever. It
was my responsibility to select the instrumentation,
make sure it was installed properly, and make sure it
operated properly.
Q.
On the professional experience information
that was provided by Mr. Monroe to me, it mentioned
something called grand radio repair.
Ground.
A.
Q.
Ground radio repair? Okay. There was a
typo. Was that
A.
That was in the Air Force.
Q.
That was in the Air Force while you were
on active duty?
A.
No. That would have been when I went into
the National Guard.
Q.
When was that?
A.
'82, I think.
Q.
Also listed was satellite systems repair.
A.
I went from ground radio into the
satellite systems. Honeywell transferred me back to
North Carolina along about that time.
Q.
What time would that be?
A.
Well, let me see. Let me get my dates
right. I went to Florida in '83, and that's when I
went into ground radio. And then I came back to
North Carolina in '86, and that's when I went into
the satellite systems. And because the unit that I
joined in North Carolina didn't have a position for
me in ground radio, I cross-trained over into
satellite systems.
Q.
The ground radio and satellite systems
0009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
work that you did for Honeywell

No, no, this was with the Air Force.
A.
Q.
I'm sorry, with the Air Force, my
apologizes -- that was after you had done this
industrial installation work with Ho neywell?
Correct.
A.
When did you move on from the industrial
Q.
installation work?
A.
1975.
Q.
What did you do after that?
A.
I went into conunercial building
instrumentation and control buildings like this in
Richmond. I went in their engineering department for
a year. And then after that, I went back into sales.
Q.
Can you just briefly describe for us
exactly what that involves, what you were doing in
that field?
A.
When I was in the engineering department,
I designed control systems and selected the
equipment. And then the project manager would take
my drawings and my equipment list and go to the job
and actually do the physical installations.
Q.
How did you learn how to create these
systems?
A.
Just OJT; on-the-job training. There were
0010
a smattering of Honeywell schools that I went through
1
off and on throughout this whole period.
2
1305
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/22 9566/0915090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 5 of35
Q.
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
These brief schools, how long would they
last?
A.
Q.
A.
Anywhere from a day to two to three weeks.

You would go full time during that period?
Yes.
Q.
Did they grant you any sort of, they being
Honeywell, were you granted any sort of
certificates -A.
No.
Q.
-- or recognition for these?
A.
Well, you would get certificates of
completion of training. I used to have a whole stack
of them, but that's it.
Q.
And again, in the material provided to me
by Mr. Monroe, it stated from '75 to 1990, you worked
in automation systems theory and design. Is that
what you previously described to us?
A.
Yes .
Q.
And that's related to these commercial
buildings?
A.
Well, from '75 to '90, yes, it would have
been
Q.
That encompassed everything?
0011
1
A.
That encompassed the commercial portion of
it. Prior to 1985, was the industrial portion of it.
2
Q.
I see . You attended Guilford Technical
3
Community College?
4
5
A.
Yes.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Q.
Can you tell us what you studied there.
A.
It was a basic machine shop course on how
to use a lathe, how to use a milling machine. That
type of thing.
Q.
How long did you attend that program?
A.
It was four quarters. I went fall and
spring quarter for two years.
Q.
I see. Was that a degree-granting
program?
It would have been if I would have taken a
A.
few other courses.
Q.
What classes specifically did you take?
Can you tell us?
A.
I took the shop practice course. I wanted
to learn how to use a milling machine and a lathe,
and that's what I took.
Q.
Was anything you studied at Guilford
Technical College related to firearms spec ifically?
A.
No. There's no school that I'm aware of
that you can go to for firearms design.
Q.
Then finally, the informatio n provided to
me mentioned that you received some CAD/CAM
programming training; is that correct?
A.
I taught myself. Well, I did some online
webinars when I first started that.
Q.
What was your end goal with studying the
machine shop practices?
A.
To be able to make parts myself instead of
having to pay someone to make them.
Q.
Parts for?
A.
Anything. You know, a lathe and a milling
machine is a generic tool. So it was just general
knowledge.
Q.
Has there e ver b een a point where you
1306
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/0915090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 6 of35
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
received any formal firearms training?

A.
No.
Did you receive any sort of
Q.
firearms-related training in the Air Force?
A.
Sure. Not as a firearms repairman and not
as an armorer, as they're typically called, but as a
user; how to use the weapon, how to clear
malfunctions. Those types of things.
Q.
So you have not attended a gunsrnithing
school?
A.
No.
0013
Q.
1
firearms?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Have you ever toured a manufacturer of
A.
Yes.
Which ones?
A.
Ohio Rapid Fire.
Q.
Do you recall approximately when that was?
A.
There's several times starting in probably
2003 or '4. Somewhere in that timeframe.
Q.
While you were on these tours, did you
receive any sort of instruction?
A.
I was there to help them set up the
manufacturing of items that I had designed.
Q.
Firearms-related items?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What items were those?
A.
The first project I worked on with them
was the Thompson. Then we did the VC-58,
Czechoslovakian VC-58, and then the FN-FAL.
Q.
That's it?
A.
That's all I can think of off the top o f
my head.
Q.
That's fine. Have you toured any other
manufacturers?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you have or have you had any ATF
Q.
0014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0015
licenses?
A.
In the early '90s, I had an FFL; late '80s
or early '90s.
Q.
Why do you no longer have it?
A.
I got tired of the paperwork.
Q.
It was not revoked from you?
A.
No. I turned it in.
Q.
You let it expire?
A.
Yeah, I let it expire.
Q.
Have you had any other licenses?
A.
ATF licenses?
Q.
Yes.
A.
No.
Q.
Have you had any, not driver's license,
but firearms related?
A.
No.
Q.
What about professional licenses?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you been to law scho ol?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever attended a seminar related
to the law related to firearms?
A.
Not that I recall. I've sat in on
seminars. No, not really, I wouldn't say.
Q.
Have you ever classified a firearm on
1307
RIF
10/ 1/2009
Page 7 of35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
behalf of a federal agency?

A.
No .
Q.
Have you ever classified a firearm for any
other body?
A.
No.
Another country?
Q.
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever testified in a legal
proceeding regarding classification of a firearm
under the NFA?
A.
No.
How about regarding classification under
Q.
the Gun Control Act?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever b een called in to consult on
a firearms classification prior to this case?
A.
Could you expand on that?
Q.
Well, has any person or entity contacted
you and asked for your input on a firearm that is
either pending classificatio n o r has been classified?
I can rephrase that if you'd like.
A.
I'd like.
Q.
Has anybody contacted you and asked your
opinion on the classificatio n o f a firearm? For
instance, they have a firearm that's been classified
0016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and they've asked your opinion on that

classification. Similar to what you're doing in this
case.
Other than -A.
Q.
Other than this case .
A.
No; because I don't know that I've been
no .
Q.
Would you describe yours e lf as a gun
enthusiast?
A.
Yes.
Q.
How l o ng would you de scribe yourself as
having been so?
A.
Well, yo u can do the math. I'm 65, and I
bought my first gun when I was ten.
Q.
So 55 years, approximately?
A.
(Witne ss nods head in the affirmative.)
Q.
You've ne ver undertaken any formalized
study of firearms?
A.
What is your definition of formalized
study?
Q.
Well, any training that would be provided
by some sort of acc redited body.
A.
No.
Q.
Be it the NRA or any s o r t o f institution
or the Government .
0017
1
A.
No.
Q.
Have yo u ever publ ished any writings abou t
2
either your professio nal fields or fir e arms?
3
4
A.
No. I've had my designs talked about.
Q.
Okay .
5
A.
By other authors .
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q.
firearms?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Well, let me ask you, have you designed

Yes.
Have you d &signed firearms' parts?
Yes.
Approximat ely how many f irearms have you
1308
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/0915090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 8 of35
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
designed?
A.
Q.
That's a very open-ended question.

Well, I was provided with a list on your
A.
Right.
CV.
Q.
I can actually show you a copy.
see i f I have a clean one.
Let me
A.
If you'd like me to go through the list.

Well, I don't necessarily need you to
recite the list to me, but my question is whether
this is an exhaustive list of the firearms that
you've designed.
A.
Well, yeah.
Q.
0018
1
Q.
You have about ten, eight or ten,
depending on how you classify these that say you
2
designed the semiautomatic fire control groups f o r
3
the following.
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Yes; and then I list them.

Then you have another approximately nine,
I think, that you reversed engineered the following
machinegun receivers with modifications to allow
semiautomatic firing only?
A.
Right.
Q.
Are there any others that you've worked on
that you haven't listed here?
Q.
A.
No.
Could you explain to me what it means to

reverse engineer a machinegun receiver to allow
semiautomatic firing only?
A.
To begin with, you have to understand what
ATF typically looks for. Let me back up. The things
that I have worked on were all originally
machineguns. And so you have to have some knowledge
of what ATF is looking for in a semiautomatic
receiver that is designed based on a machinegun; what
features are they looking for in a redesigned
receiver that can only be used for semiautomatic
firing.
Q.
0019
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In a hundred percent of the cases, you

start off with bits and pieces of previously
demilitarized receivers that have been destroyed per
the ATF guidelines at the moment it was destroyed,
because those guidelines are a moving target and they
change. The first thing you have to do is figure out
how long the original piece was and where these bits
and pieces that you have would have fit within that
area.
Then you look at all machining features
that are there and start developing -- I use a
three-dimensional CAD program, solid modeling, if you
will, program -- and you literally try to recreate
the receiver on the screen as accurately as you can
based on the pieces of paper that you have or pieces
of receiver that you have.
Once you get that design done, you now
have on the screen what would have been a fully
automatic receiver, and now you start modifying it
and adding features that would make it a
semiautomatic receiver.
Q.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, because
especially in this company I'm a novice when it comes
to firearms, what that essentially means then is you
1309
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/09 l 5090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 9 of35
25
find a way to demilitarize or destroy, in lay terms,
0020
1
a firearm and then put it back together?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0021
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
I get it.
No.
It's already been demilitarized when
Q.
Okay. So it's demilitarized, and you take
those pieces and put them back together?
A.
On the screen.
Q.
On the screen?
A.
On the computer, yes.
Q.
To create a semiautomatic firearm?
A.
Design.
Q.
Are you familiar with what the current
guidelines for demilitarization of a machinegun
receiver are?
A.
Well, they're different for each weapon.
Q.
Are you familiar with demilitarizing a PKM
machinegun receiver?
A.
I haven't specifically looked at that, but
there is a manual that the ATF publishes that tells
you the guidelines for demilitarizing .
Q.
Do you know whether or not saw cutting is
acceptable to demilitarize a PK receiver?
A.
It used to be. It isn't now.
Q.
Do you know when the guidelines changed?
A.
Not really. Some time in the late
'90s/early 2000. Some time in that timeframe. It's
been quite a while.

Q.
But in your experience, the guidelines
vary essentially item by item?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, what you've described thus far seems
to be primarily things you've designed on the
computer, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Have you actually manufactured any either
prototypes or finished fire arms?
A.
The VC-58.
Q.
The Chzech assault rifle?
A.
Yes . And right now the FAL receiver.
Q.
Were those prototypes or were they, in
your mind, a finished product?
A.
Well, you know, the first ones were
prototypes. And then you go back and find out where
you made errors and correct it, and produce operable
weapons after that .
Q.
Have you produced operable weapons?
A.
Not personally. They we re produced by
Ohio Rapid Fire.
Q.
So you provided them with a prototype?
A.
No. I provided them with drawing.
Q.
Okay. With the drawings?
25
0022
1
A.
And then I went to their factory and we
2
built the first prototype there .
3
Q.
Have you personally machined a gun?
4
A.
No.
5
Q.
These prototypes that we've discussed, are
6
they tangible products or are they on a computer?
7
8
9
10
A.
Tangible products.
Who machined tho se?
A.
Well, I assisted with it, but they're done
on CMC equipment .
Q.
1310
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/2295 66/0915090 H. TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 10 of35
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
CMC being?
A.
Computer Merit Control. So you have the
machinist there that runs the machine, and he
programs the machine the way I tell him to, and then
the machine makes the part.
Q.
I see. So based on what you make and
CAD/CAM, the machine is programmed to make the part?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Now, have you relied on the Firearms
Technology Branch, FTB, to classify your designs in
the past?
A.
Some of them.
Q.
Can you tell us which ones, if you know?
A.
The MG-15 receiver I sent in. The ST-61,
which is the same as the MG-15, virtually. I also
0023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sent in some stuff I didn't even think about. A

Vickers sideplate, an incomplete receiver. I sent in
an M-1919 Browning incomplete receiver.
Q.
Let me ask you, why did you submit these
items to FTB?
A.
Life insurance. It's not a requirement
that you submit items to FTB. There's not a legal
requirement for you to do that, but if you do submit
them to FTB and they give a classification letter
approving your design, then you feel like you're safe
in producing that item without potentially having ATF
coming at you later on.
Q.
In the case of the items you've sent to
FTB, did you agree with the classifications you
received?
Not always.
A.
Q.
Can you tell us which ones you disagreed
with?
A.
I submitted a question. It was not an
I didn't submit an item.
I submitted a question.
It
was some years ago before the German MG-42
semiautomatic had been classified. It had been
classified as a rifle, and I sent in a letter
requesting that it be classified as a firearm.
I received a positive classification back,
0024
1
and then two or three weeks later, they sent me
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
another letter rescinding the first classification

and classifying it as a rifle. I think that
classification is in error, but it wasn't worth
arguing the point.
Q.
Are there any other classifications of
your items that you've disagreed with?
A.
No. I've disagreed like when I sent in
the Browning 1919 incomplete plate. They just sent
back a letter and said, no, it's not an incomplete
plate. So I got back in touch with FTB and said,
Well, what do I need to change.
I mean, for them to just send back a
letter and say, no, it's not complete, but not give
you any guidelines as to what you need to do to make
it an incomplete plate, that to me seemed to be a
waste of time. So I wrote back and sent the part
back. They responded and showed me what they wanted
changed.
Q.
So they were able to resolve your issue on
that case?
A.
Sure. Yes, they were able to resolve that
1311
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 11 of35
23
24
issue . I think they should have resolved it in the

begi nning. I mean, if it would have been a
completion of the point.
25
0025
Q.
Stepping back to some of the firearms or
1
parts that you've designed, are your designs
2
original?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Yes and no. I don't think any firearm is
an original design. Everybody draws on designs from
the past to design a new product. The shape, size,
curves may be different, but they all draw on
previous art .
Are there specific previous designs that
Q.
you've relied on?
A.
Not nothing specific; it really depends on
the application .
Q.
So did you then generally start from
scratch when you would design a firearm?
A.
Sure, yes.
Q.
Did you ever design copies, as well?
A.
What do you mean by that?
Q.
Were there e ver instances where instead of
starti ng from scratch, you started with an existing
firearm and then built o ff o f that?
A.
All of them start with an existing
firearm ; all of the designs that I've done .
Q.
Have you ever testified as an expert
before?
A.
No.
Q.
I'm including d e positions in that, as
well.
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever been retained as an expe rt
in a case before?
A.
No .
Q.
Have you been retained as a c onsultant on
a case?
A.
Unpaid, yes. I mean . ..
Q.
Can you tell us about that .
Well, I was asked to show up at the Ernie
A.
Wren trial -- that's been several years ago -potent i ally to discuss, I think they wanted me to
talk about the Maxum machinegun, but I was never
called.
Q.
Who asked you to show up at that?
A.
Ernie Wren.
Q.
He's the person who contacted you?
A.
Yes. As I recall, he was. I talked to a
lot of people at that time, but I believe it was
Ernie who asked me.
Q.
You did show up at the tri al?
A.
Yes ; it was in Columbia, South Carolina.
Q.
Di d you pay your own way to get down
there?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0027
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Who first contacted you about testifying
in this case?
3
4
I guess Len did, Len Savage.
A.
5
Q.
Prior to him contacting you, were you
aware of the facts and circumstances that led t o
6
7
this?
8
A.
Only on the surface. I knew that Le n had
1312
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo .com/myfiles/229566/0915090 H. TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 12 of 35
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0028
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0029
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
a design that he had submitted that there was some

question about, but I didn't know hardly any of the
details .
Q.
Did you learn about that from Len or from
another source?
A.
From Len .
Q.
Do you recall what you were originally
told when you were asked to participate in this case?
that you're seeking anything that's privileged
or work product. I'm not sure exactly what
you're asking.
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) I'm not asking f o r any
communication from Mr. Monroe, but when Le n
originally contacted you.
MR . MONROE: Well, that could be
privileged or work product. So I'm no t sure
exactly what you're asking for.
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) Well, I'll rephrase it.
When Len originally spoke to you about participating
in the case, did he provide you with additional
information on the firearm that he designed, the
defendant firearm ?
A.
No.
Q.
When did you first receive detailed
information about the defendant firearm?
A.
It depends on what you call detailed. The
first time I knew what it was was when I saw it at
the test firing.
Q.
At the Coweta County test firing?
A.
Yes .
Q.
So prior to that you've never seen this -had you seen a drawing or a schematic of it?
A.
No.
Q.
Had Len described it to you?
A.
Only in general terms.
Q.
Based on his description, did you have an
opinion on whether or not it was a machine gun at that
point?
A.
Not really.
Q.
You were shown the ATF classification
letter that was provided to Mr. Savage regarding the
defendant firearm?
A.
It seems like I was shown it just before
we went to the test firing or it was e-mailed to me.
I don't remember now which, but I had seen it just
before the test firing.
Q.
At that point, did you get a chance to
read it over?
A.
Yes, of course.
Q.
What was your opinion of it?
A.
I don't know that I had an opinio n at that
point because I hadn't seen the device .
Q.
When you were retained or hired in this
case, however you want to phrase it, were you told
what the issue would be as to rendering an opinion
on?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What was that issue?
A.
To look at the item and render my opinion
as to whether or not it was a rnachinegun .
Q.
Were you told how to go about rendering
1313
RIF
1011/2009
Page 13 of35
21
22
23
24
25
that opinion?
A.
No.
Q.
Besides the FTB classification letter that
you just mentioned, were you provided any other
documents to that end to rendering your opinion?
0030
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Not that I recall.
Q.
Were you given any samples of firearms or
other firearms to look at?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you receive any specific instructions
about how you were to go about in rendering your
opinion?
A.
No.
Q.
You prepared a report?
A.
Yes.
(Government Exhibit 1 was marked for
identification. )
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi} I'm showing you what's
been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Do you
recognize this?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is it?
A.
This is the report that I wrote after I
had observed the test firing at the Coweta County
Range.
Q.
Did anybody assist you with the
preparation of that report?
A.
No.
Q.
Were you given any instructions as to what
the report was to contain?
0031
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
No.
Once you completed that report, did you
discuss it with anybody?
A.
Sure. You know, I sent a copy of it to
Mr. Monroe.
Q.
I'm not asking you for the substance of
any discussions you had with Mr. Monroe, but after
you sent that report, did you have discussions with
him about the content of the report?
A.
With Mr. Monroe?
Q.
Yes.
A.
No, I did not.
Q.
How about with Mr. Savage?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Were you asked by anybody to make any
edits to your report based on discussions yo u had
after you prepared it?
A.
Absolutely not.
Q.
So that report, as you have provided it to
us, is the
A.
Is the work product of myself .
Q.
Okay . It's the final one? No drafts?
A.
Correct . Oh, I'm sure I did a draft to
edit. Nobody saw that draft.
Q.
That was exactly what I was going to ask
A.
Q.
0032
l
2
3
4
5
6
you. Thank you. Now, are you being paid to

participate in this case?
A.
No.
Q.
You're not?
A.
No.
Q.
Are you receiving reimbursement for your
1314
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/0915090H. TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 14of35
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0033
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0034
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
travel expenses?
A.
Not at this time .
Q.
Do you anticipate being reimbursed for
your travel expenses?
A.
I would like to be, but I don't anticipate
it .
Your preparation of that report, are you
Q.
being paid for preparing that?
A.
No .
Q.
Were you paid to travel to the Coweta
County Testing Range?
A.
No. I haven't been paid at all in regards
to this case . That should cover it all .
MR. VISCOMI: That does. At this time, I
don't have any further questions. My co -counsel
is going to take over the questioning. I don't
know if you want a few minutes before we start.
Do you want to take a break?
MR. FOSTER: Let's all take a five- minute
break .
(Recess from 1:38 p . m. to 1 : 58 p . m. )
MR. FOSTER: Let's mark the CV as
Government's Exhibit 2.
(Government Exhibit 2 was marked for
identification.)
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Mr. Harding, just for the
record, do you recognize what's been marked as
Government's Exhibit 2?
A.
Yes, I do.
Q.
And that is, sir?
A.
My CV.
Q.
I t is your CV. I'm going to back up a
little bit here. Going back to when you first
encountered or heard about the Defendant firearm, do
you recall where that was or what setting?
A.
I'm sure it was over the phone.
Q.
It was over the phone . And that would be
you heard it from Mr. Savage?
A.
Savage.
Q.
And he just said something along the lines
o f , hey, Orin, I've made this thing . What do you
think?
A.
I think it was past this point. I think
it was when you had -- that whole issue about the
Form 2, and all that, about how it was going to be
classified. I think that was about when I heard
about it .
How would you describe your relationship
Q.
with Mr. Savage?
A.
He's a personal friend .
He's a personal friend?
Q.
A.
Yes .
Q.
Have you two collaborated in the past on
different firearms' projects?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So you learned about this from Mr. Savage,
about the defendant firearm. Prior to the learning
of that, how many previous contacts did you have with
Mr. Savage or Historic Arms?
A.
You know, that's really a hard question,
because Len is my friend. Sometimes, you know, we
get on the telephone and talk about dogs. So I can't
1315
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 15of35
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
answer that. I've known him for years.

Q.
That was my next question. When did you
meet him, approximately?
A.
I don't know. '02, '03; somewhere along
there.
Q.
So about five years ago?
A.
Five, six years ago.
0035
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0036
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
How did you meet? What circumstances?

Didn't we meet at Knob Creek?
MR. MONROE: It's your deposition.
THE WITNESS: I think we met at Knob
Creek, which is a machinegun shoot. I honestly
don't remember, but I believe that's right.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) From this personal
relationship, did a business relationship evolve,
also?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So you've consulted with him?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And he's consulted with you?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Have you ever been paid for either
consulting with or for him?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You have?
A.
Q.
Do you mind if I ask how much?
A.
It was the SG-43. Len didn't pay me
direct. It was paid through Century Arms.
Q.
What is the SG-43?
A.
It's a Russian belt-fit machinegun, model
of 1943.
A.
Q.
What was your involvement in -A.
I reversed engineered the receiver for it
and did the drawings for the receiver.
Q.
So like you had mentioned earlier, you
basically took a destroyed receiver?
A.
Uh-huh.
Q.
Now, when you take a destroyed receiver,
you take measurements from it; is that correct?
A.
Yes; that's correct.
Q.
Then what do you do with those
measurements?
A.
Input it into a CAD program, Computer
Aided Design program.
Q.
When you go to a manufacturer such as
Mr. Savage or Historic Arms -A.
In this particular case, I did the
drawings, created the solid model, which is a
three-dimensional model. You can look at it on the
screen, rotate it, and look at it. It looks just
like the original piece would look. Then I created
what is known as an IGES file, which is a file that
can be imported into any number of programs to take
measurements off of a drawing. And then I produced,
also, a hard copy drawing.
Q.
When you submit that paperwork or that
0037
1
2
3
4
design -- the blueprint, the schematic -- to the

manufacturer, the manufacturer then inputs that into
the CMC machine?
A.
Correct; or they can make it manual, but
1316
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 16of35
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
typically it's CMC.

Q.
And that's where I was going . This was
earlier, and I was a little confused . When you said
that they built this back, I wasn't sure if they were
actually rewelding -A.
No .
Q.
-- a destroyed receiver or if this is a
completely new receiver.
A.
Typically, they take a billet of steel and
start widdling away at it with a milling machine
until they get the final shape of the part that they
want to make.
Q.
Okay. Going back to your consultation
with Historic Arms, it was after the design phase
that you were consulted about this?
A.
I was asked to do the drawings of the
receiver, and Len had already designed the
semiautomatic portion of the receiver. So he told me
what modifications he wanted made to the original
receiver to make it semiautomatic, and I incorporated
those modifications in the drawing .
0038
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You're referring to the SV-43?

A.
SG-43.
Q.
SG-43 . Not the defendant firearm?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Now, in relation to the defendant firearm,
your involvement was completely
post-production/post-design?
A.
Correct.
Q.
You didn't do any schematics for it?
A.
No.
Q.
You didn't review any schematics or
anything such as that?
A.
No .
Now, you said you examined the defendant
Q.
firearm?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And that was at?
A.
The range.
Q.
Do you remember what date that was?
A.
It was in June; June 10th, 2009.
Q.
Can you describe basically what you did in
your examination?
A.
I really looked at the -- there were other
people handling it. So it wasn't really necessary
for me to actually go over and pick it up and look at
Q.
0039
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
it, because I could stand and see everything I needed

to see. But I saw the defendant firearm, and I saw
Mr. Kingery do his demonstration.
Q.
So you did not take any measurements or
dimensions of the firearm?
A.
No.
Did you internally examine it?
Q.
A.
There again, there were other people
examining it at the same time. So I just looked over
their shoulder and saw the design feature of the gun.
Q.
So someone opened the top cover and you
were able to look inside the weapon?
A.
Yes. And the internal parts were removed,
so you could see the device in its entirety .
Q.
Can you tell me what basic parts compose
the defendant firearm?
1317
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/09 l 5090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 17of35
17
A.
There's a shell. There's a front
18
trunnion, a barrel, a top cover, a bolt carrier,
bolt, and recoil spring.
19
Q.
What did you mean by the term shell?
20
21
A.
It's the housing that holds all the parts
22
together.
MR . FOSTER: I'm going to just go ahead
23
24
and label this as Government's Exhi bit 3,
25
because I'm going to just use it to let you sort
0040
of point it out.
MR. MONROE: You're not going to make that
part of the record, though, right?
MR . FOSTER: No. We will maintain this.
But just for demonstration for him to point out,
is that acceptable?
MR. MONROE: Well, I mean, if you discuss
it in the deposition and label it but it's not
made part of the record, then labeling it will
become meaningless in the transcript . So I'm
not sure that's going to serve a purpose .
MR. FOSTER: Off the record, please.
(Off the record.)
MR . FOSTER: At this time, we will not be
entering this as Government's Exhibit 3, but
what I have sitting on the table is a PK-type
machinegun, Serial No. GT748.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Do you see this item,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0041
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sir?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Could you point to what you're referring
to as the shell of the firearm here?
A.
It would be this sheet metal part right
here.
Would that sheet metal part also be called
Q.
the receiver?
A.
It ' s a part of the receiver .
Q.
What is the receiver then on a PK firearm?
A.
Well, it consists of many components. It
consists of that shell, the front trunnion, the back
trunnion, this lower guard.
Q.
So your testimony is that a receiver
without front trunnions, rear trunnions, guards would
not be a receiver?
MR. MONROE: Objection. That's a little
circular . You called it a receiver and then not
a receiver.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Let me rephrase that. So
what you're saying is a receiver has to have front
trunnions, rear trunnions, and guards in order to be
classified as a receiver?
A.
In my opinion, yes.
Q.
In your opinion, yes?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you know what the definition of a
firearm is under the Gun Control Act?
A.
I th i nk I can maybe paraphrase it.
Q.
Would you mind paraphrasing it?
A.
It would be a device designed to hold a
projectile, contain the explosion, and have the
0042
1
2
mechanism to contain the explosion and expel a

projectile.
1318
https://vi p2 l .nationaldepo .com/myfiles/229566/0915090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 18 of35
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Do you know if that definition also
includes frame or receiver or firearm?
A.
I know frame or receiver is described. I
don't know where in the regulation it is described.
But some of the features are, one that comes to mind,
is that it has to have a method of attaching a
barrel .
Q.
Would it surprise you to learn that frame
or receiver is in the definition under the Gun
Control Act for a firearm?
A.
No, it wouldn't surprise me .
Q.
Do you know what the definition of firearm
is under the National Firearms Act?
A.
A firearm that can fire fully automatic.
Q.
Is it just limited to that?
A.
No. It can be a short barrel receiver
a short-barrel rifle. I really don't know where
you're going.
Q.
I'm just trying t o determine your
definition of -- whether your definition of firearm
is what the law means. So I'm just asking you
what
A.
Oh, I see.
0043
Q.
If your definition is the same as what the
1
2
Gun Control Act or a National Firearms is .
Well, an NFA firearm would be any firearm
3
A.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0044
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
that's regulated by NFA such as machineguns,

short-barrel rifles, silencers. I'm trying to think
of what else. Those types of weapons -- a sawed off
shotgun. I'm sure there's s omething I've forgotten,
but I can't remember.
Q.
Do you agree with the GCA definition of
firearm? Do you think that's a correct definition?
MR . MONROE: Objection . I don't
understand what you're asking. Are you asking
if the statute is correct?
MR . FOSTER: To a certain extent, yes .
Does he be lieve the statute is correct .
THE WITNESS: Can I read the statute?
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Sure. If you open your
book, you can turn to page five under 92l(a) (3).
MR. MONROE: Just to clarify the question,
you're asking if Section 92l(a) (3) is correct?
MR. FOSTER: If he agrees that that is the
definition of a firearm under the Gun Control
Act.
MR . MONROE: I'll object under the grounds
that it ca lls for a legal conclusion, but you
can answer it .
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to answer?
MR . MONROE : Well, if you can . If you
can't, you can't .
THE WITNESS: I don't feel comfortable
answering it because it says its design may be
readily converted. What is readily?
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) So, also, do you know
what the definition of a machinegun is?
A.
The general term is any weapon that fires
more than one projectile for one function of the
trigger.
Q.
Does the defendant firearm meet any of
these definitions?
1319
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 19of35
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0045
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I don't think so. Not as it was designed
in and of itself.
Q.
Well, can the defendant firearm expel a
projectile by function of explosions, which is what
the definition says?
A.
Not without the addition of parts .
Q.
Your report concludes that the defendant
firearm is a non-firearm; is that correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Do you know what a short-barrel rifle is?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you just generally describe that?
A.
Any rifle with a barrel less than 16
inches in length.
Q.
Is a short-barrel rifle a National
Firearms Act's firearm?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you know that Historic Arms filed an
ATF Form 2 registering the defendant firearm as a
short-barrel rifle?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Well, how can your report say that it's a
non-firearm when Historic Arms is admitting that it
is a firearm?
A.
My opinion is it's not a firearm.
Q.
So was Historic Arms wrong?
A.
I don't know.
Q.
So must a firearm discharge a projectile
to be a firearm?
A.
Yes.
Q.
But a frame or receiver by itself cannot
discharge a projectile?
A.
Correct.
Q.
But they are firearms by definition?
MR. MONROE: Objection. Is that a
question?
0046
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0047
MR. FOSTER: Yes.

Q.
(By Mr . Foster) Is it not, a frame or
receiver, a firearm?
A.
By statute it is.
Q.
By statute it is. So the defendant
firearm, what you described as a shell, could that be
a receiver?
MR. MONROE: Objection. Counsel, I mean,
it might just be easier if you'll just call it
the defendant instead of the defendant firearm
since the status of firearm is at issue.
MR. FOSTER: If you want to call it, we
can call it the defendant. That's fine.
MR. MONROE: Okay.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Does the defendant have a
receiver?
A.
Can I talk to counsel for a few minutes?
MR. FOSTER: Joe?
MR. VISCOMI: No, I prefer you not -MR. FOSTER: Yes, if you can answer the
question, you can feel free.
THE WITNESS: Ask me the question again.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Does the defendant
firearm have a receiver?
A.
There are two kinds of definitions of a
1320
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/0915090H. TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 20 of35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
receiver. There's the definition of a Title I

firearm receiver and there's the definition of a
machinegun receiver. Which one are you asking me
about?
Q.
Well, let's do both of them. Does it have
a Title I firearm receiver?
A.
I would say, yes.
Q.
Then why does your report say it's a
non-firearm?
A.
Because in and of itself, it cannot expel
a projectile. You have to add parts to it to make it
expel a projectile.
Q.
But doesn't the definition of firearm
include a frame or receiver?
A.
But it also says that it must be able to
expel a projectile. And in that sense, it cannot be
a firearm. You know, it's got a shell that acts as a
receiver if it's complete, but it's not complete.
Q.
If you would, refer again to the
definition that you just looked at, which is
921 (a) (3).
A.
Right.
Q.
Would you read that definition to me.
A.
It says: The term firearm means, (A), any
weapon including a starter gun, which will or is
0048
1
designed to or may readily be converted to expel a
2
projectile by the action of an explosive; (8), the
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C), any

firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or, (D), any
destructive device. Such term does not include an
antique firearm.
Q.
So the definition of what you just read
has four different components, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And if it meets any one of those
components, it's a firearm?
MR. MONROE: Objection. Calls for a legal
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) To the best of your
knowledge, as long as the firearm meets any one of
those criteria, it's a firearm? It doesn't have to
meet all four?
MR. MONROE: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: As I read it, it must
contain all four components.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) So a firearm would have
to have a firearm muffler in addition to a frame or
receiver in order to be a firearm?
MR. MONROE: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Well, I guess if you look at
0049
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
that narrow definition, then, yes, it has a

receiver .
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) So that means your
conclusion that it's a non-firearm is incorrect?
A.
In that narrow definition, yes.
Q.
Okay. Now, moving onto the National
Firearms Act, what is the definition of a receiver
under the National Firearms Act?
A.
Well, it would be a receiver of a
machinegun or any other device controlled by NFA.
Q.
And a rnachinegun, as defined by the
National Firearms Act, again, is a firearm which is
1321
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 21 of 35
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0050
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0051
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-- and just to paraphrase. I'm not going to quote it

exactly -- is a firearm that expels more than one
shot for a single function of the trigger?
A.
Correct.
that ' s not the wo rding of the Act .
MR. FOSTER: I can read the Act exactly if
you would like then.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) So to go back, my
question was -A.
What page are you on?
Q.
I'm actually on page 77. The definitio n
of a machinegun under the National Firearms Act is
referred to: The term machinegun means any weapon
which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot ~utomatically more than one shot
without the manual reloading by a single function .o f
the trigger. The t e rm shall also include the frame
or receiver of any such weapon . Any part designed
and intended solely and exclusively or a combination
of parts designed and intended for use in converting
a weapon into a mac hine gun, and any combination o f
parts for which a machinegun can be assembled if such
parts are in the p ossession or under the control of
the person . That's the definition o f a machinegun,
correct?
A.
Uh-huh.
Q.
So why is the defendant fir e arm's Title I
receiver, what you define as a Title I receiver, why
is it not a machinegun receiver?
MR. MONROE: I'll object again t o
defendant fi rearm.
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) I apologize. Why is the
defendant's receiver not a machinegun receiver? Why
i s it only a Title I receiver?
MR. MONROE: Objection . It calls for a
legal conclusion. Answer if you can .
THE WITNESS: I don't think that I'm
qualified to answer that .
(By Mr . Foster) So
Q.
I mean, ask the question again.
A.
The defendant receiver, which you refer t o
Q.
as a Title I firearm receiver
A.
Right.
Q.
-- why is it not a machinegun receiver, as
well?
A.
That , I can't answer. I don't have an
a nswer for that .
Q.
So you do not know the difference between
a semiautomatic PK receiver and a full automatic PK
r eceiver?
A.
Yes . But the defendant is not a complete
r eceiver, it ' s only complete when you add to it.
It's incomplete as it sits.
Q.
I'm going t o introduce or put out a piece
of a firearm on t he table . I would like you to look
at this firearm a nd te ll me wha t this i s .
Well, it's t he receiver for a n M16 .
A.
Q.
Now, you jus t said it' s a receiver for an
M16?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So an M16, i s that a rnachinegun?
1322
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/091 5090H. TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 22of35
25
0052
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0053
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Yes.
Q.
How do you know that's a machinegun?
A.
Well, a couple of reasons . It's been
machined out in here to accept the fire control group
of a machinegun . It's marked semi-auto safe, and
it's also marked with the model number. But the
defining features is the rnachinegun back here, it's
separate parts .
Now, yousaid in order to be a receiver it
Q.
had to have parts to attach, I believe you said, a
front trunnion, a rear trunnion, and so forth.
Now, you called this a receiver and you
testified it's now a receiver, but it doesn't have
those parts, correct?
A.
That's because the Government determined
it was a receiver, not because it meets -- that does
not meet the definition of a receiver that we read
just a few minutes ago.
Q.
The M16 receiver that you have in front of
you, do you know approximately what year that was
originally designed?
A.
'58, '57/'58.
Q.
What year was the Gun Control Act enacted?
A.
Q.
'68.
So this firearm was created or designed

some ten years before the Government got into
regulating
A.
Classifying.
Q.
Classifying firearms?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So the Government didn't classify this as
a receiver, the manufacturer did, correct?
A.
That I don't know .
Q.
Okay. So going back to the receiver here,
you testified this is a machinegun?
A.
This?
Q.
Yes. The Hydra-Matic M16-Al receiver in
front of you is a machinegun?
A.
Yes.
Q.
As it sits, can it fire more than one shot
automatically?
A.
No.
Q.
But it's still a machinegun?
A.
Correct.
Q.
All right. So what you're saying is, even
if a receiver cannot expel projectiles, it is still a
machinegun if it is a machinegun receiver?
A.
If it has been classified as a machinegun
receiver.
Q.
The rnachinegun receiver in front of you,
does it have a mechanism to retain or contain a
0054
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
recoil spring, a buffer, or anything such as that?

A.
It has an attachment point for it .
Q.
It has an attachment point, but it's not
presently on that item?
A.
Correct.
Q.
But even though those are not on there,
this is still a machinegun?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Now, based on your report, your report
basically said because there is no mechanism to
1323
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/0915090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 23 of35
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0055
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0056
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
contain the operating rod and the recoil spring and

the buffer on the defendant, it cannot be a
machinegun; is that correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
But you just testified in this case, this
is a device which doesn't have those same feature
presently on there?
A.
But you're talking about a device that was
previously classified. Isn't this case about the
classification of the defendant?
Q.
I'm going to the general knowledge of
receivers and how things are classified and what the
function of firearms is. So going to the defendant,
you did admit, though, it has a receiver? A Title I
receiver?
A.
Yes.
But you also said that you do not know the
differences between a Title I PK receiver and a Title
II PK receiver?
MR. MONROE: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say that. I do
know the difference between a Title I PKM
receiver and a Title II.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) And what is the
difference?
A.
In the Title I, there is a blocking bar in
the bottom of it if it is used as a PKM. To build a
PKM, there's a blocking bar in there that prevents
the bolt carrier from going forward if it still has a
sear notch on it. Secondly, one of the rails is
increased in thickness so you cannot insert the bolt
carrier.
Q.
When you looked at the defendant firearm
at the range, did you see a blocking bar?
A.
No.
Q.
So the blocking bar had been removed from
the receiver?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you measure the rails?
A.
No; but I looked at the rails, and they're
Q.
obviously different in thickness. One of the other

gentlemen there did measure the rails.
Q.
But you don't have the information? The
measurements he made?
A.
I do at home. I don't have them with me.
Q.
Now, when you examined the bolt and bolt
carrier of the defendant firearm, you examined that,
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Would you classify that bolt and bolt
carrier as a machinegun-type bolt.
A.
It either is a machinegun bolt or it is
not a machinegun bolt.
Q.
Well, is it a machinegun bolt?
A.
It's a modified machinegun bolt.
Q.
Does it contain design features of the
machinegun bolt?
A.
Yes.
Q.
How is it modified?
A.
Number one, the side rail was increased,
and width, so it would fit into the semiautomatic
receiver.
1324
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 24 of35
23
24
25
0057
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
Increasing the width of that side rail,
did that defeat the whole purpose of the increased
rail on the semi-auto PK receiver?
A.
It all owed the bolt to be insert ed into
the receiver .
Q.
So your testimony is that the defendant,
as you examined it, had the blocking bar removed and
it had a machinegun bolt that had been modified so
that it would insert and function into that receiver?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So at that point, is that receiver not a
rnachinegun receiver?
A.
No.
It's not?
Q.
A.
No. You have to add parts to it to make
it operate as a machinegun.
Q.
You have to add parts to the M16 receiver
to make it operate as a rnachinegun, correct?
A.
Right.
Q.
But i t's still a machinegun?
MR. MONROE : Is that a question?
(By Mr. Foster ) That was a question. But
Q.
this is still a machinegun, correct, the M16?
The M16.
A.
Q.
Going back to the defendant, in your
report you made the statement that the chain, the
tensioning bolt, and metal plate were an unregistered
conversion device? Is that the term?
25
0058
1
A.
Yes.
Q.
I don't want to misquote you.
Isn't it
2
true that no matter what you use t o contain the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
recoil spring operating rod of the defendant, it

would fire uncontro lled if arrununition was put in and
the bolt was retracted and released?
A.
Corr ect .
If you were to take a PK machinegun and
Q.
removed the rear trunnion and the butt stop right
here and take that same chain and attach it, it would
fire automatically, as well? The same way as the
defendant?
A.
If you r e mo ve the butt stock, the fire
control group, all that, I suspect it would.
Q.
So if that's the case, why is the PK still
classified as a machinegun if it's absent these
parts?
A.
Because that receiver has been classified
as a rnachinegun rece iver.
Q.
Who makes that classifi cation?
20
21
A.
ATF.
Q.
Who made the classification of the
22
23
defendant?
A.
ATF.
24
Q.
Do you know what ATF l oo ks at whe n they
25
0059
1
make a classification?
A.
No.
2
Q.
You don't?
3
4
A.
No. It's ne ver been publishe d .
Q.
It's never b een published?
5
6
A.
That I'm aware of.
7
Q.
Okay. Talking about PKs in general, do
8
you know how many diffe rent types o f PK machineguns
1325
https://vip2 I .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/09 l 5090H.TXT
RIF
10/1 /2009
Page 25 of35
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0060
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0061
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
have been produced?

A.
No.
Q.
It's more than one?
A.
More than one.
Q.
Do you know how many countries have
produced PK machineguns?
A.
No.
Q.
But it's -A.
It's a substantial number.
Q.
A substantial number. Do you know if in
these different -- based on the country of origin or
on the model, do you know if all PK parts
interchange?
A.
I suspect they do, but I'm not certain of
it.
Q.
Would you agree there's probably some
parts that wouldn't interchange?
A.
Would not interchange?
Q.
Would not interchange. For instance, a
tanker model gun versus an early PK or something like
that?
A.
You know, it's conjecture, but ...
Q.
Well, if it's conjecture, let's not go
there. Do you know what the term open bolt means?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Open-bolt firing?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Explain to us what that means.
A.
It means that the bolt is resting in its
open retracted position prior to firing.
Q.
Could you explain basically what the
firing sequence of an open-bolt firearm would be?
A.
When the trigger is pulled, the bolt would
be released . As the bolt continues forward, it would
strip the cartridge from the feed device, feed that
cartridge into the chamber. At the same time, the
extractor on the face of the bolt would grab the back
of the cartridge for subsequent extraction.
And then at that point, it depends whether
it's a fully automatic weapon or a semiautomatic
weapon depending on what happens next.
Q.
Well, if it's a fully automatic weapon,
what would happen next?
A.
Then some mechanism would dimple the
primer on the cartridge causing the gun t o expel the
cartridge.
Q.
Then what would happen?
A.
Then the mechanism would retract, either
by recoil or gas operation, it depends on the we apon,
extracting the spent cartridge and expelling it. If
the trigger was still pulled, it would repeat the
cycle . If the trigger had been released, then the
bolt would be captured in its rear-most position.
Q.
Okay. If we back up to the point in which
the extractor grips the cartridge, it's the point
where you said maybe it differed if it was a
semiautomatic firearm. If it was semiautomatic, what
would the firing sequence from that point be?
A.
Then as the bolt retracted and extrac ted
the spent cartridge, it would go back. During that
period of time -- the sear would have been tripped
and released to grab the bolt, and then the sear
1326
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/09 I 5090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009

21
22
23
24
25
0062
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Page 26 of35
would grab the bolt and stop it from going forward

again.
Q.
Are there any open-bolt semi-automatic
firearms currently produced in the United States
today?
A.
Not currently produced.

Not currently produced. Does a PK
machine gun fire from an open bolt?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Does the defendant fire from an open b olt?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you tell me what a fixed firing pin
is?
A.
Just exactly that. It's fixed. It's
unmovable with relationship to the rest of the bolt.
Q.
Is that feature something that's common on
semiautomatic firearms?
A.
No.
Q.
What kind of firearm is it common on?
A.
Fully automatic firearms.
Q.
Fully automatic. To your knowledge, are
there any fixed firing pins semiautomatics produced
in the United States today?
A.
No.
Q.
The PK machinegun, does it fire with a
fixed firing pin?
A.
No.
Q.
What does it use?
A.
It uses a floating firing pin.
Q.
A floating firing pin? Explain the
Q.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0063
1
difference.
2
A.
A fixed firing pin, as I explained
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
earlier, is fixed in relationship to the other parts

of the bolt. It does not move. A floating firing
pin moves in relationship to the other part of the
bolts.
Q.
Do you know what is meant by the term
striker fired?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you explain to us what that means?
A.
A striker is typically a linear striker.
In other words, it's maybe a rod. It can be many
different things. It moves in a linear fashion to
strike the firing pin as opposed to a hammer that
swings in an arc.
Q.
Is the PK what you would call a
striker-fired weapon?
A.
It's actually a linear hammer. The part
that hits the -- yeah, it would be striker fired.
Q.
Striker fired?
A.
Uh-huh.
Q.
Now, you said that the PK does not utilize
a fixed firing pin?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Does the defendant utilize a fixed firing
23
24
25
0064
1
pin?
2
A.
Now, that design feature, I don't know.
3
Q.
So you didn't investigate?
4
A.
No, I didn't.
5
Q.
Now, you did say, though, that the
6
defendant contains a modified PK bolt?
1327
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/09 l 5090H. TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 27 of35
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
Yes.
Those modifications, again, what were
those?
A.
The increase in the side wall, the slot.
And also, it does have a floating firing pin in it.
It is not a fixed firing pin.
Q.
So it 1 s the same as the PK then?
A.
Yes.
Q.
The firing pin is the same?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay. Would you say then that open-bolt
firing and the floating firing pins are typical
design characteristics of machineguns?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And I know earlier today you testified
that all of the guns that you have designed were
based on pre-existing models, correct?
A.
Yes, correct.
Q.
Do all machineguns that are made, do they
0065
have to fall under a pre-existing model or can a
1
2
designer create sort of a new firearm in itself?
A.
He can, but he's going to use design
3
4
components that have been used for years.
Q.
Okay. So for example, the M16 here, what
5
6
firearm was the M16, based off of?
7
A.
Loosely, on the Johnson.
Q.
Coming back, are you familiar with an
8
9
AR-10?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
What is an AR-10?
A.
It's the predecessor to the M16. It was
12
designed by the same man, and it was in caliber 308.
13
14
Is the M16 basically a scaled down AR-10?
Q.
15
Correct.
A.
16
Q.
So the receiver is slightly smaller?
17
A.
Yes.
The caliber is smaller?
18
Q.
19
A.
Yes.
Q.
20
But it uses the same direct gas
impingement system to fire?
21
22
A.
Correct.
23
Q.
Do any parts between those two firearms
24
interchange?
A.
I don't believe so.
25
0066
l
Q.
But you would both classify them as an
2
AR-type receiver?
A.
Yes.
3
4
So the defendant is based off a PK-type
Q.
5
firearm, correct?
A.
Yes.
6
7
Q.
And like the AR-10, the AR-10 and the Ml6,
8
while one of the parts may not interchange exactly,
9
the method of fire, the method of construction, is
more or less the same. It's just a different scale,
10
11
so to speak?
12
A.
Between the AR-10, the AR-15 or M16, yes.
Q.
But with the PK, is it not, once again,
1.3
14
similar? I mean, there are some interchangeable
15
parts between the PK and the defendant, while other
parts won't interchange?
16
A.
Yes.
17
18
Q.
Is the defendant not just its own
1328
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 28of35
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0067
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0068
l
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0069
1
2
3
4
machinegun?
A.
No.
It's not a design of its own?
Q.
A.
No .
Q.
It's not a machinegun that's based off the
PK?
A.
It's not a machinegun .
Even though it has a receiv er, correct?
Q.
It has a receiver, once again?
A.
Yes.
And the blocking bars have been removed,
Q.
correct?
A.
Correct.
And also the side rails, the bolt has been
Q.
modified so it will go in despite the bigger side
rails, correct?
A.
Right.
Q.
But you still say that's not a machinegun?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Can you describe to me the method of fire
of a PK machinegun or the firing principals of how
one would fire?
A.
As I described earlier to you, the fire
method of an open bolt. You asked me about an
open-bolt rnachinegun, and that's exactly how that
fires .
The method of firing for the defendant
Q.
firearm, is it the same?
A.
The defendant firearm?
Q.
I'm sorry, the defendant -- pardon me,
John
is it not the same principles of operations
of the PK?
A.
missing,
complete
complete
complete
I think there's a point here we're

and that is is that we're talking about a
weapon. You have repeatedly referred to a
weapon sitting here. The defendant is not a
weapon.
If t he weapon was completed by the
addition of other parts then, yes, it will fire. But
the defendant in and of itself will not fire without
the addition of additional parts. So, I mean, we're
comparing apples and oranges.
Q.
So under that theory, if a manufacturer
were just to remove the trunnion and the stock, they
could sell this gun all day long because it can't
fire?
A.
No . Because the ATF said you can't,
because that receiver has been registered as a
Q.
Why is the ATF wrong, then? Why are they
right about this receiver being a machinegun receiver
and they're wrong about the defendant's receiver
being a rnachinegun receiver?
A.
Because the defendant's machinegun
receiver was not designed to be a machinegun . It was
designed to use registered machinegun components to
complete it .
Q.
What kind of machinegun was it designed to
A.
The MAC.
Does a MAC machinegun have anything in
use?
Q.
1329
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/09 l 5090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 29 of35
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0070
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0071
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
common with a PK machinegun?

A.
Yes.
Q.
What is that?
A.
The method of firing.
Q.
The method of firing. But do any of the
parts interchange?
A.
No.
Q.
Are the calibers remotely similar?
A.
No.
If you take two firearms that are Title I
Q.
firearms and combine them together, do you have one
firearm? Two firearms? Three firearms? What do you
have?
conclusion. Answer it, if you can .
THE WITNESS: I've got no idea how to
answer that question. You might have something
that would fire projectile. And then you're
going to have a bunch of parts over here, part
of which may or may not be the registered part
of that gun, which would be the receiver, so.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) We talked a little bit
about the M16. Are you familiar with what's called
just an M203?
A.
What's the slang term for it?
Q.
40-millimeter grenade launcher.
A.
In passing.
Q.
You've seen them, but
A.
Yeah.
Q.
If you attach a 203, which is a firearm
itself, onto an M16 firearm, have you created a new
firearm? I mean, do we say that's, you know
A.
I would say that's two weapons.
Q.
That's two weapons.
MR . FOSTER: Do you mind if we take a
five-minute break?
MR. MONROE: No.
(Recess from 2:49 p.m. to 3:08 p.m . )
MR. FOSTER: I only have one last thing
just for record purposes. I've got a new copy
of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference
Guide, which Mr. Harding earlier read
definitions from 18 USC 921 (a) (3), and also the
definition from which I read of the machinegun
under Title 26 USC Section 5845(b).
MR. MONROE: Are you going to make that
part of the record?
MR. FOSTER: Yes, I'm making this part of
the record .
(Government's Exhibit 3 was marked for
identification.)
MR. MONROE : I mean, I don't object if you
want, but I just want to point out that that's a
lot of pages to add for things that are citable
in the Code and the statute, anyway .
MR. FOSTER: At this time, we have no
further questions for you, Mr. Hardy.
MR. MONROE: I have a few questions.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. MONROE:
Q.
Mr. Harding, when Mr. Foster was asking
you questions about the definition of a receiver, you
1330
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 30of35
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
identified some of the featur e s that a receiver has .

Do you remember them?
A.
Yes .
Q.
One of the features you said a receiver
has is a rear trunnion; is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Does the defendant have a rear trunnion?
A.
No.
Q.
So does the defendant fit the definition
0072
of a receiver?
1
2
A.
It fits the definition of an upper
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0073
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0074
1
receiver similar to an Ml6 upper receiver .

Q.
Does it fit the definition of the receiver
that you were discussing with Mr. Foster where the
receiver has to have a rear trunnion?
A.
Q.
No.
So when you're talking about an upper

receiver, what does that mean?
In a firearm, s ome firearm designs, and
A.
let's use the Ml6, for example, you have the l owe r
receiver and then you have the upper receiver, which
contains the bolt and the barrel .
In the Ml6, the lower receiver is the
registered component and the upper receiver, whic h
contains the guide channel, and what have you, f or
the bolt . And also, the attachment point for the
barrel is a nonregistered component. It can be
bought and sold at will without registration.
Q.
Okay . About that M16 receiver that you
discussed earlier with Mr. Foster, you said it was a
machinegun; is that right?
A.
The lower receiver is a machinegun.
Q.
Right . Were you saying it's a machinegun
because it fits the definition of a rnachinegun or
because the ATF classifies it as a machinegun?
A.
Because the ATF classifies it as a
machinegun .
Q.
Do you believe it fits the definition of a
machinegun?
A.
No .
Q.
Why not?
Because it does not contain all of the
elements of a receiver. It has no provisions to
mount a barrel, for example.
Q.
So if you were to identify what part of a
complete Ml6 is the receiver, which part would you
identify or set of parts, if there's more than one?
A.
If I were classifying it?
Q.
Yes .
A.
I would classify the upper receiver as
being the receiver.
Q.
Okay. I think you testified, also, that
the defendant was designed to go on a MAC-type
machinegun; is that right?
A.
Q.
Does a MAC have an upper and a lower
receiver?
Yes , it does.
A.
So is the defendant designed to go on the
Q.
A.
upper or lower portion of the MAC?

A.
It is designed to have the lower portion
1331
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/0915090H. TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 31 of 35
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0075
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of a MAC mounted to it.

Q.
And is the upper or the lower of the MAC a
machinegun?
A.
The lower .
Q.
So what is the upper part of the MAC?
A.
It is an uncontrolled collection of parts.
Q.
And if you were to attach the same chain,
turnbuckle, and aluminum plate that the plaintiff
attached to the defendant to an upper MAC, what
result would you get?
A.
If there was a cartridge in it , it would
fire the cartridge.
Q.
So it would behave essentially the same
way as the defendant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You also talked about modifications to the
bolt of the defendant, do you recall that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Were the modifications done to the bolt
itself or to the bolt carrier?
A.
Bolt carrier.
Q.
Does a PK-type machinegun have an upper
and a lower receiver?
No.
MR. MONROE: That's all I have.
MR. FOSTER: If you don't mind, just a few
quick follow ups on what you had there .
MR. MONROE: Okay.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FOSTER:
Q.
Mr . Harding, you just said that the
modifications were not to the bolt. They were
actually to the bolt carrier; is that correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So the bolt itself is a machinegun bolt?
An unmodified machinegun bolt?
A.
Yes.
Q.
The bolt carrier, those modifications were
specifically -- what were those modifications, again,
on the bolt carrier?
A.
The guide rail on the left side was
increased in height so that it would fit the channe l
of the s emiautomatic receive r.
Q.
So it was modified so that a fully
automatic machinegun bolt could go into the receiver?
A.
It was a modified fully automatic bolt,
yes; bolt carrier.
Q.
Bolt carrier?
A.
0076
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
Okay. Just going back to the chain that
he mentioned, what mechanical function does the chain
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
tensioning bolt and plate, what function do they

have, mechanical function?
A.
They anchor or give resistance to the
recoil spring.
Q.
So -A.
Resistance to movement.
Q.
How do they convert the defendant?
A.
They capture the recoil spring and prevent
it from moving. They allow the recoil spring to
compress against the plate, which is held in place by
the chamber .
1332
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 32 of35
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0077
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
And you said, by definition, that a
machinegun receiver must have a rear trunnion; is
that correct?
A.
I don't believe that's in the definition.
Q.
But you testified earlier that the
defendant's receiver was not a machinegun receiver
because it did not have a trunnion, a rear trunnion?
A.
Well, it does not have any way to contain
a recoil spring. Maybe that's a more accurate way of
saying it.
Q.
Do you think that Historic Arm's failure
to include a mechanism to contain the recoil spring
was to intentionally keep the firearm from firing
without the addition of it?
A.
Absolutely.
Q.
So the defendant firearm was designed
to
A.
It's not a firearm.
Q.
I'm sorry. The defendant was designed to
fire as a machinegun once something was attached to
the rear?
A.
It was designed to fire as a machinegun if
a MAC lower were attached.
Q.
But it functions like that if anything
else is attached to contain the bol t and recoil
spring?
A.
It will operate as what is called a
stutter or a -- it's an uncontrolled device if you
attach anything to simply hold the recoil spring.
Q.
But it's an uncontrolled device that fires
more than one shot without any other user input?
A.
Right. But the ATF has ruled that if you
add components to something that converts it into a
machinegun, then the parts that you add to it are
conversion devices; is that not correct?
And if that's correct, then adding the
24
25
0078
plate and the tensioning bolt and chain in and of
1
2
themselves, those are conversion devices.
Q.
All I'm looking for is a yes or no. And
3
that is, the firearm as you described it as being a
4
sputter-type gun or stutter gun, sputter or stutter,
5
6
as you described it, it will fire automatically
7
without any other user input until the ammunition is
expended, correct?
8
9
A.
Yes.
10
MR. FOSTER: Okay. No further questions.
11
MR. MONROE: I don't have anything more.
(Deposition concluded at 3:20 p.m.)
12
13
14
Rules of Civil Procedure and/or O.C . G.A .
9-11-30(e), signature of the witness has been
15
16
reserved.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0079
1333
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 33 of35
'
2
3
Examination
Page
5
6
7

Direct Examination by Mr. Monroe
Recross-Examination by Mr. Foster
B
9
10
3
71
75
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
11
12
13
Government's
Exhibit
1
14
15
16
17
18
19
2
3
Description
Test and Exam of Historic Arms LLC
A7.62X54R Caliber Conversion System
Report
Curriculum Vitae
2005 Federal Firearms Regulations
Reference Guide
Page
30
33
71
{Original Exhibits l through 3 have been

20
attached to the original transcript.)
21
22
23
24
25
0080
1
2
3
STATE OF GEORGIA:
4
COUNTY OF FULTON:
5
6
7
8
9
were reduced to typewriting under my direction;
10
11
12
13
certify that I am not of kin or counsel to the
14
15
16
17
case.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0081
1
2
[ORIGINAL ON FILE)
3
4
5
6
Pursuant to Article B.B. of the Rules and Regulations

1334
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/229566/09 l 5090H.TXT
RIF
10/1/2009
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0082
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Page 34 of35
'

counsel to the parties or other entity . Such form
here as a representative of Huseby, Inc . Huseby,
given to any party to this litigation .
DEPOSITION OF ORIN B. HARDING/JRN

me on the 15th day of September, 2009, taken before
1) There are no changes noted.
2) The following changes are noted:
Annotated 9-11-30(e), both of which read in part:
13
Page No.
Line No .
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
25
0083
1
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Line No .
should read:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1335
RIF
101112009
Page 35 of35
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Page No .
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No .
Line No.
should read:
Page No .
Line No .
should read :
Page No.
Line No .
should read :
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No .
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

deposition.
20
21
ORIN B . HARDING
22
23
24
25

This the
day of
20
I
Notary Public
1336
RIF
10/1/2009
Page 1 of27
0001
1
2
3
4

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
vs.
6
7
8
9

54RCCS A7 . 62X54R CALIBER
CONVERSION SYSTEM@
Defendant.
FILE NO .
1:09-CV-0192-GET
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0002
1
DEPOSITION OF
JAMES A. MAYO, JR .
September 18, 2009
11:15 a.m.
Suite 3 00
Atlanta, Ge orgia
Yolanda R. Narci sse, CCR-B-2445
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

U. S . Department of Justic e
United States Attorney's Offi ce
Suite 600
( 404) 581-6036
(404) 581-6181 (Facsimile )
jeffrey.viscomi@usdoj.go v
U.S . Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco , Firearms &
Explosives
(404) 417-2696
(404) 417-2691 (Facsimile )
harry . foster@atf.gov
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Ros well, Georgia 30075
(678) 362-7650
(770) 552 - 9318 (Facsimile )
Also Present:
1337
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/091809JA. TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
r
21
22
23
Page 2 of27
Mr. Len Savage, Claimant; President, Historic
Arms, LLC
Explosives
24
25
0003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0004
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

of Georgia . )
JAMES A. MAYO, JR.,
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. VISCOMI:
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Mayo.
A.
Good morning.
Q.
My name is Jeffrey Viscomi . I'm an
ass i stant U. S . attorney along with Harry Foster .
We' r e the attorneys on this case for the Government.
Also , in this room is Max Kingery from the Fire
Technology Branch of ATF along with, of course, you
know Len Savage and John Monroe and the court
reporter .
The way this deposition will work is I'm
going to go through your CV and qualifications and
we're going to break for lunch at that p o int. And
when we come back, Mr. Foster will finish the
deposition. I would only ask that you keep your
voice up so that everyone in the room could hear yo u.
If you do n ot understand the question,
please let me know. I'm happy to repeat it, restate
it, rephrase it; whateve r your preference is . If you
do answer a question that I ask without stating you
don't understand it, the assumption on the record
will be that you understood the question.
The final thing I'll ask you is just wait
until I finish asking a question before you answer.
And likewise, I will do my very best to not interrupt
anything you're saying.
A.
Okay.
Q.
With that, I will ask you to please state
yo ur full name for the record.
A.
James Arthur Mayo, Jr.
Q.
People call you Chip?
A.
Yes, it's a -Q.
Nickname?
A.
Yes.
Q.
How old are you, Mr . Mayo?
A.
35.
Q.
A.
2411 Rhyne Road, Dallas, North Carolina.
Q.
Where is that in Dallas, approximately?
A.
Northwest o f Charlotte, Gaston County.
Q.
I see from your CV, you're currently
employed by a company called CMP Armory; is that
0005
1
2
3
4
correct?
A.
Q.
A.
I'm the owner.

You are the owner?
Yes.
1338
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/09 l 809JA.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 3 of27
5
Q.
A.
7
8
Q.
owner?
A.
10
Q.
A.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0006
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Q.
A.
What does CMP stand for?

It's the initials of my family .
What would be your position there as the
I guess chief manufacturer, builder.
Do you have any other employees?
Just my wife.
What is her role?
She refinishes arms.
How long have you been the owner of CMP
Q.
Armory?
A.
Eight years.
Q.
What exactly does CMP Armory do?
A.
Restore machineguns, transferable
machineguns for repair; also, manufacture automatic
weapons for law enforcement sales as well as
semi-automatic versions f o r general public sales.
Q.
Can you tell us some of the firearms that
CMP has designed?
A.
Designed?
Q.
I'm sorry, you said manufactured, correct?
A.
I do manufacture existing designs.

So CMP does not d e sign its own firearms?
A.
No, not new.
Q.
So what firearms has CMP manufactured?
A.
Again, as my design or as -Q.
No, existing designs at CMP.
A.
I do work on PKM-type machineguns; all AK
variance, FNFAL varianc e, AR/M16 variance -- the
list, I can continue all afternoon -- M60s 249s,
240s, M250s, Browning-like machineguns, BARs, all H&K
variance, and I do some cannon wo rk for a Type 10
manufacturer.
Q.
You stated that CMP manufactures for law
enforcement sales. Do they also manufacture for
private sales?
Yes; semi-auto variance.
A.
Q.
How do you make private sales?
I either make private sales through an 01
A.
dealer in North Carolina.
So you have a dealer, basically a retail
Q.
shop that sells them for you?
A.
Yes.
Do you sell any of them on the Internet?
Q.
No.
A.
Q.
I don't know under the terms of any
Q.
contracts you have with law enforcement whether you

can tell me, but if you can, can you tell me some of
the law enforcement entities that have purchased -A.
Mainly the sheriff's department and the
upstate of South Carolina and North Carolina where
I'm at.
Q.
Are they purchasing their duty weapons
from you or are they like special for SWAT team
weapons?
A.
SWAT team.
I assume you founded CMP Armory?
Q.
A.
Yes.
Prior to founding CMP Armory, what did you
Q.
do?
A.
A machinist for Freightliner Corporation
as well as Daimler Trucks North America.
1339
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.cornlmyfiles/283099/091809JA.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 4 of27
17
18
Q.
A.
19
Q.
20
21
22
23
24
25
0008
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What kind of machining work di d you do?

Automotive parts.
Things related t o Fre ightliner trucks?
Yes.
And Daimler trucks?
Yes.
How long did you work there?
Ten years.
Prior to that?
A.
Prior to that, I worked for Pemberton Coat
& Chassis, which was a body shop, high-end cars;
primarily German.
Q.
What was the nature of your work there?
A.
Auto body painting.
Q.
Collision repair?
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
Four years, roughly.
Q.
Prior to that, did you have another job?
A.
Automotive electronics.
Q.
Where?
A.
I'm trying t o think.
Q.
Take your time.
A.
I can't remember. Audio Excellence, East
Independence Boulevard.
Q.
What did you do there?
A.
Alarm installations.
Q.
Car alarms?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
I guess kind of start at zero, if you
want, what was the highest grade level that you
achieved?
A.
I graduated high school .
And Pemberton is the first job y ou had out
Q.
of there?
A.
Q.
A.
No.
Did you go to school after high school?
No .
What did you do inunediately after high
Q.
school?
A.
Inunediately after high schoo l, auto motive
electronics .
Q.
And then you went to Pemberton?
A.
Yes.
Q.
I'm sorry, Pemberton was no t the
automotive electronics?
A.
No.
Q.
Then you went to Pemberto n and then you
did the machining work?
A.
I went to Freightliner.
Q.
Freightliner. And then yo u started CMP?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was there any overlap? We re yo u wo rking
for Freightliner still after you started CMP?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When did you start working full time for
CMP?
A.
Two times. When I be c ame licensed in
2001, I acquired a Federal firearms license in 200 1
0010
1
and started CMP Armory. In 200 4, I went back to work
at Freightliner until November of last year.
2
1340
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/091809JA.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 5 of27
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
November of 2008?
A.
Yes, but I continued to run CMP Armory
full time the entire time that I've been licensed t o
do so.
Q.
Was it j ust the situation where, f or
whatever reason -- I'm certainly not trying t o prio r
into your life -- you needed extra money o r work had
slowed down?
A.
No. At that time, Freightliner
Corporation provided very good benefits.
Q.
They made you an offer you couldn't
refuse?
A hundred percent co verage for your entire
A.
family, no money out of pocket; yeah .
Makes sense. Let's talk about, yo u
Q.
mentioned your federal firearms license . When did
you first receive the Federal firearms license?
November 2001.
A.
That was an FFL?
Q.
Yes, an 07.
A.
Type 07? What does that mean?
Q.
Manufacturer of firearms other than
A.
destruction devices.
Q.
Q.
Do you have any other Federal licenses?
A.
I have a Class 2, special occupational tax
stamp .
Q.
What does it mean to be Class 2?
A.
A Class 2 manufacturer manufactures NFA
items of up to 50 caliber.
Q.
So that means you can build machineguns?
A.
Yes; select fire suppress, short-barrel
rifles, short-barrel shotguns; just not destructive
devices .
Did you get the SOT at the same time y ou
Q.
had the FFL or was it -A.
Yes .
You maintain those licenses?
Q.
Yes, they are current .
A.
Have you ever served in the military?
Q.
A.
No .
Would you describe yourself as a gun
Q.
enthusiast?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When did you first become interested in
firearms?
My entire life, I guess.
A.
So since yo u were a child?
Q.
A.
Yes .
Q.
Were you involved on a personal or hobby
level with firearms while yo u were involved as a
machinist when working at Pemberton and Freightliner?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Do you currently own guns?
A.
Yes .
Q.
I don't need to know e xactly which ones,
but roughly how many?
A.
Personally or c ompany guns?
Q.
Let's start with personal.
A.
Personal guns, maybe 25 .
Q.
When you say company guns -A.
Company guns would be non-transferrable
post-86 dealer sample machineguns.
1341
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/091809JA.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 6 of27
15
16
17
18
19
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
20
A.
21
Q.
22
A.
23
24
Q.
How many of those do you have?

Maybe another 25; 20, 25.
Those are all guns that CMP manufac tured?
Yes.
Are they a variety
Yes.
-- or are they mainly of one kind?
No. They're a variety.
Have you ever attended a 9unsmithing
school?
A.
Yes .
1
2
Q.
3
4
5
6
Q.
Which one?
I'm a certified Glock armo r e r.
Where did you attend that?
The class was set up in Mo unt Holly, Nort h
25
0013
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
A.
Carolina.
How long was the class?

Eight hours.
Q.
One day?
Yes . It was a one-day eight-hour
A.
armorer's course .
Q.
What did you learn during that course?
A.
The history of the Glock firearm, complete
disassembly and maintenance and anything in between.
Q.
Have you attended any other gunsmithing or
armory schools?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever t oured a manufacturer?
A.
No .
Q.
I don't mean t o r e hash this, but you
stated CMP does not design guns, correct?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever personally designed guns?
A.
I do have some things, but they're still
drawings .
Q.
But beyond drawings, you've never designed
Q.
A.
0014
anything?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0015
No.
Have you ever submitted items, e i t he r you
personally or on behalf of CMP to FTB?
A.
No .
Q.
Has anyone else ever submitted a ny i tems
on behalf of CMP to the FTB?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you had any personal dealings with
FTB? And I'm referring to the Firearms Technology
Branch just so the record is clear.
A.
No .
Q.
Have you ever received any legal training?
A.
No.
Q.
You haven't attended law school , co rrec t?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever taken a legal course or
seminar?
A.
No .
Q.
Have you ever classified a fir earm for the
government under the National Firearms Ac t ?
A.
No .
Q.
Have you ever classified a fir earm unde r
A.
No.
A.
Q.
1342
RIF
913012009
Page 7 of27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0016
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0017
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Q.
Have you ever classified a firearm f o r a ny
other regulatory body?
A.
No .
Q.
Have you ever collaborated with Mr . Savage
or Historic Arms before?
A.
Collaborated as in?
Q.
As in either design o r ma nufacture of a
firearm?
A.
No.
Q.
How do you know Mr. Savage?
A.
We shot together at Knob Creek and t hen
through a mutual friend.
Q.
How long have you known him?
A.
Maybe four years.
Q.
You can approximate. You said four years?
A.
Maybe four years.
Q.
Maybe four years. Have you ever had any
business dealings with him?
Such as?
A.
Q.
Well, I'll give you, I guess, an example,
but not in an exclusive list. Have you ever
purchased anything that Historic Arms has
manufactured or purchased a design that maybe History
Arms
A.
Yes . I've purchased a firearm from him.
Q.
A.
rifles .
Q.
A.
What did you purchase?

One of Historic Arms' Bren semi-automatic
When was this?

A year ago .
Q.
Is this a variant of a common design?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What was it?
A.
A Bren-like machinegun.
Q.
Have you had other business deals or
purchases from Len Savage?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever testified as an expert in a
trial before?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever testified as an expert in a
deposition before?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever been retained as a
consultant on a case?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever testified in court before?
A.
No .
Have you ever been deposed or been in a
Q.
deposition?
A.
No .
Q.
Who first contacted you about testifying
in this case?
A.
Len Savage.
Q.
When did he contact you?
A.
I do not remember the date.
Q.
Can you approximate? Give us an
approximate time.
A.
Eight months ago.
Q.
So that would mean roughly the beginning
of 2009?
A.
Yes.
1343
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 8 of27
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Prior to him contacting you about this
case
and I'm going to refer to something called
the defendant. And when I refer to that, that is the
device at issue here, the 54R Counter-Conversion
system that Historic Arms designed. I'll just use
defendant as a shorthand.
So prior to him contacting you, Mr. Savage
contacting you about this case, were you aware of the
defendant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
In what context did you become aware of
it?
A.
What do you ...
0018
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0019
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
I'll rephrase it. When did you first
become aware of it?
MR. MONROE: By "it," you mean the
defendant?
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) The defendant.
A.
I saw the conversion device before it was
submitted.
Q.
Before Historic Arms submitted it to the
Firearms Technology Branch.
A.
Q.
Did you see it in person or in a
photograph? A video?
A.
In person. I happened to be at Historic
Arms.
Q.
You were down in Franklin, Georgia?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you recall when that was?
A.
No.
Q.
At the time you first saw the defendant,
was it demonstrated to you?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you have an opportunity to fire it?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When you had an opportunity to fire it,
was that firing videotaped?
A.
Not that I'm aware of.
Q.
After that visit to Historic Arms, did you
ever have any other encounters with the defendant?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, when Mr. Savage contacted you about
the potential involvement in this case, what were you
told about what your involvement would be?
A.
Just as an expert witness.
Q.
Did he tell you what issue you would
render an expert opinion on?
A.
To determine if the device was an upper or
a firearm.
Q.
Did anybody, including Mr. Savage, give
you any instruction on how you were to go about in
making that determination?
A.
No.
Q.
Were you provided, at any time, with any
d ocuments that were to assist you in making that
determination?
A.
No.
Q.
Were you given any other materials that
would help you in making that determination?
A.
No.
Q.
Were you given any sample firearms or
1344
https://vip21.nationaldepo .com/myfiles/283 099/091809JA.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 9 of27
25
0020
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
anything like that?

A.
No .
Did Mr. Savage or anybody else give you
any instructions regarding how you were to make your
determination?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, you previously test i fied you saw the
defendant at some unknown time prio r to it being
submitted to the FTB, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did there come a time when you saw the
defendant again?
A.
At the testing in April -- was it April?
Q.
Perhaps June in Coweta County?
A.
June, I'm s o rry.
Q.
At the testing, there were -A.
Yes.
Q.
There were numerous people. I was there.
A.
Yes .
Q.
Mr. Foster was there .
A.
Yes .
Q.
Okay. Was that the first time you had
seen the defendant since you had seen it way back?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Did you have an oppo rtunity to examine the
defendant at that point?
Q.
25
0021
A.
Yes .
1
Q.
How did you examine it?
2
A.
Visually, as well as using a set o f
3
calipers to mark certain parts.
4
Q.
What were you looking for?
5
MR. MONROE: Let me just jump in again .
6
You're , again, free to split things up however
7
you want, but you might be getting a little bit
8
into the substance of his expertise as opposed
9
to his CV .
10
MR. VISCOMI: Sure . I understand . I'll
11
just ask him to answer that question, and I'm
12
going to move one so I don't stray too far.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR . MONROE: Okay.
(By Mr. Viscomi) I'm just asking you
generally, when you examined it, what were you
looking at?
A.
Just comparing the two or actually the
three ; the defendant, an original PK machinegun, and
a semi-auto receiver that was provided just for
differences between the three pieces.
Q.
You prepared a report in preparation for
this case, correct?
A.
Yes.
MR. VISCOMI : I'm going to ask the court
Q.
0022
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
reporter to mark Exhibit 1 . It's a two-page

document .
identification.)
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) You've been handed
what's been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Do you
recognize that?
A.
Yes .
Q.
What do you recognize it to be?
A.
The report that I sent Mr. Monroe .
1345
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/091809JA.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 10 of27
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That's the report you prepared with

the defendant?
Yes.
Did you prepare that report?
My wife prepared it for me. She just
I don't type.
You provided the substance?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Q.
And she typed it?
A.
Yes.
Did anybody assist you with its
Q.
preparation?
Q.
respect to
A.
Q.
A.
typed it.
A.
No.
Q.
A.
Besides your wife's typing?

Right.
0023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
Q.
Did you receive any instructions as to
what the report was to contain?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What sort of instructions did you receive?
A.
Just not really instruction, but examples
of the way to lay it out; not what to say or what to
add.
Q.
Those examples were reports about the
defendant?
A.
No.
They were reports about other devices?

A.
They were generic as in just basic format.
Q.
Understood. When you finished that report
with the help of your wife, did you discuss the
finished report with anybody?
Q.
A.
No.
Q.
What did you do with the finished report?
A.
It was e-mailed to John Monroe, Monroe
Whitesides, and everyone involved.
Q.
Did you receive any feedback on the report
once you sent it to those people?
A.
Other than it was direct and short, that's
about all.
Q.
Were you asked to make any edits based on
that feedback that it was direct and short?
A.
No.
Q.
So the draft that I have shown you that's
in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, is that the
same draft that you -- excuse me, the same version of
the report that you sent to Mr. Monroe, Monroe
Whitesides, and others involved in the case?
A.
To the best of my memory, yes, without
looking on my computer. Word for word, I couldn't
tell you that 100 percent.
Q.
The substance is the same, correct?
A.
Yes, it appears to be.
Q.
Are you receiving compensation for your
participation in this case?
A.
I will be billing Historic Arms at the
conclusion.
Q.
How much do you anticipate billing them?
A.
I don't know at this point.
Q.
Do you have a rate?
A.
Based off of the production that we do,
around $750 a day.
Q.
Do you know how many days you've worked so
far on this case?
1346
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 11 of 27
23
A.
24
25
Q.
Maybe four at the moment including today.

Whom do you expect to receive payment
from?
0025
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0026
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0027
1
2
3
Historic Arms and Len Savage .

Are you also receiving compensation for
your expenses related to traveling and so forth f or
this?
A.
No .
Q.
That's on your own dime?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Do you have any interest in the po tential
retail sale or other sale of the defendant? Do you
have any stake in it?
A.
No.
MR. MONROE: You mean financia l interest?
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) Yes, financial interest .
A.
No.
Q.
Not economic interest .
A.
No .
Q.
So regardless of its classific ati on, you
don't expect to receive any money?
A.
No .
Q.
Or any other compensation?
A.
No, not on -- you are saying on the sale
of
Q.
Of the defendant.
A.
No.
Q.
Or copies of the defendant?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
o f yours?
A.
Q.
level?
A.
Q.
A.
Every day?
No, I do not.
Do you consider Len Savage t o be a friend
Yes.
Do you have contact with him on a personal
Yes.
How often?
What are you asking?
Like a phone cal l ?
Q.
Yes. Talking o n the pho ne. Sending
e-mails . That kind of thing.
A.
Other than to do with this, maybe once a
month or less. I normally see him twice a year in
Kentucky.
Q.
At the Knob Creek shoot?
A.
Yes.
Q.
How many times have you been to the
Historic Arms shop in Franklin?
A.
Four. I think I've been to his shop f o ur
times .
Q.
Would you say those visits were personal
or d i d you have some business to attend to?
A.
The last two visits were to do with this .
Once at the testing and then this week, as well.
Q.
You said you were als o there s ome other
A.
Yes . Prior to that, that was personal.

That was personal?
Yes.
The other two were f or
Having to do with -The case?
time?
Q.
5
6
7
8
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
1347
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/091809JA. TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 12of27
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.
Yes.
Q.
Then there was another visit before, as
well, prior to the first time you saw the defendant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You said four?
A.
Yes.
Q.
That was just a personal visit, as well?
A.
Yes.
MR. VISCOMI: I have no further questions
of the witness. I think at this point we can go
to lunch and reconvene at around 1:00 and finish
the deposition.
MR. MONROE: Okay.
(Lunch recess from 11:41 a.m. to 1:15
P .m.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
24
25
BY MR. FOSTER:
0028
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0029
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) All right. We are back.
My name is Harry Foster. As Jeff told you earlier,
I'm the attorney with ATF. I'm also special
assisting the United States Attorney on this case.
We're going to talk here a little bit about the
defendant and its characteristics and some about y our
report.
I want to remind you, you're still under
oath from earlier. Basica l ly, when we left off, J e ff
had just finished your qualifications. So now I'm
just going to -- it isn't really going back, but I
just want to clarify s ome things.
The first time you learned about the
defendant -- and when I say the defendant, I'm
referring to the Historic Arms 54RCCS caliber
conversion device; is that right?
MR. SAVAGE: Close enough.
(By Mr. Foster) Close enough. When was
Q.
the first time you learned about that, approximately?
A.
I do not remember the date.
Q.
Do you remember an appro ximate month?
I believe October.
A.
Q.
October. Would that be '07? ' 0 8? '09?
Well, obviously not '09.
A.
I believe October of '08.
So that would be last October?
A.
Yes.
how did
Q.
What was the nature of learning
you learn about it?
A.
The shoot that we were supposed to go to
in Kentucky was canceled due to flooding, and it was
just a group of people that got together at Historic
Arms instead. Everybody already had travel plans
made and just went and hung out at his place.
Q.
So when Knob Creek became a river, you
went to Franklin, Georgia?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you think it was Octob e r o f '08? So
last October?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now when you got there, h ow was it
presented to you?
A.
Wait a minute.
I'm sorry. When you arrived at
Q.
Mr. Savage's facility -Q.
1348
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 13 of27
21
22
23
24
25
0030
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I believe the date is wrong. I dont

A.
remember if it was April or October that it was
flooded . I didn't go this past April .
Okay .
Q.
I don't remember . It was a Knob Creek
A.
weekend .
It was a Knob Creek weekend in which it
Q.
was flooded?
A.
Yes . The second weekend in April o r the
second weekend in October, but I do no t remember.
Q.
Exactly when?
A.
Which event.
Q.
So you're planning to go there . You end
up going to Franklin, Georgia instead with a bunch of
folks. How did Mr. Savage present the defendant to
you?
A.
It was shown to several manufacturers that
were present that he had just completed this
conversion and asked opinions and was shipping it out
the following week, to the best of my knowledge.
Q.
So t h is was a sort of show-and-tell, hey,
look at this or maybe even to get possible sales in
the future?
A.
I think more just, hey, l ook at this; not
really trying to sell it to anybody. Just, you know,
it's here. What do you think of it.
Q.
Have you ever heard of any MAC-based
belt-fed uppers before prior to seeing this
defendant?
A.
One based on an RPD. I r emember fr om
0031
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
several years ago someone said they were going to

come out with it, and I never saw any end product,
but it was just an advertisement that I saw for one .
Q.
So it was something in a magazine or on
the Internet or something to that effect?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So when you observed the defendant at
Mr . Savage's shop, whenever that was, did you have an
opportunity to examine it? Did you open it up and
play with it or did you just sort of l ook at it and
pick it up and test fire it?
A.
To the best of my knowledge, it was apart
when I arrived there, and we put it t o gether and shot
it.
Q.
And by put it together, what do you mean?
A.
The upper had the bolt and everything
already in it. We just added a lower that Historic
Arms had available and test fired it.
Q.
So by putting it together, you mean
just
A.
Adding a lower.
Q.
-- attach a MAC-10 lower to the bottom of
18
19
20
21
22
23
it?
24
25
0032
1
2
3
4
5
6
A.
Q.
Yes.
Load it with ammunition?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And let i t go?
A.
Yes.
So you didn't consult with Mr . Savage or
Q.
Historic Arms in the design of this?
A.
No.
1349
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/09 l 809JA.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 14 of27
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0033
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0034
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q.
Have you ever consulted in the design of
any other firearms with him, with Mr. Savage or
Historic Arms?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, after test firing the firearm that
day, did you have any other opportunity to see the
defendant?
Not until the test firing of this year.
A.
That test firing was the Coweta Country
Q.
Range day?
A.
Yes.
Can you tell me what you did at that test
Q.
firing? I'm assuming you examined the defendant?
MR. MONROE: Which firearm are you
referring to?
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) The most recent one with
ATF and Mr. Savage's other experts.
A.
Comparison between the Historic Arms upper
and a semi-auto PKM receiver and a full-auto PKM
receiver.
Q.
What exactly did you do to make those
comparisons?
A.
I did a visual inspection as well as
measuring certain parts of all three items and
comparing the three.
Q.
What measurements specifically did you
take?
A.
Well, specifically, the left rail of the
semi-auto receiver compared to the upper Historic
Arms compared to a full-auto PKM receiver.
Q.
Why did you measure the left rail?
A.
Because with a semi-auto rail you c an't
install fully automatic parts without having modified
them.
Q.
Do you know the dimensions of the left
rai l on a semi-automatic PK?
A.
No, not offhand. I do not have those.
Q.
But you have them somewhere, I'm assuming?
A.
Bill Messenger was the one taking notes
that day . The only notes I have are his notes.
Q.
So you didn't take your own notes?
A.
No, I did not.
Q.
So I'm assuming you didn't take notes on
the measurements of any of those rails yourself? You
were relying on someone else?
A.
No. I took the measurements and he -Q.
He transcribed what you said?
A.
Right.
Q.
But you don't recall what any o f those
me asurement s were at this point?
A.
No .
Is there a reason why you didn't put any
Q.
o f that in your report?
A.
Why did I not put measurement or the
Q.
The measurements, yes, sir.
A.
No, there's no reason why.
Q.
Don't you think it would have been more
helpful to say that this rail was X dimension while
this rail was Y dimension?
A.
Possibly.
Q.
After you took the measurements, what did
you do next in examining the defendant?
1350
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 15 of27
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0035
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
We disassembled the upper from Historic
Arms as well as the full-auto PKM from ATF and tried
to swap certain parts.
Q.
What parts compose the defendant? What
parts make up the defendant? You could describe to
me what you saw in front of you.
MR. MONROE: Counsel, are you asking him
to tell you what parts comprise the defendant or
are you asking him to recall what he knows about
it?
MR. FOSTER: What he knows about it.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) What did you see?
A.
It's basically a PKM-style front end that
houses a MAC-style carrier system.
Q.
What d o you mean by front end?
A.
Top cover feed tray, front trunnion
barrel.
Q.
Anything else?
A.
No . At that point, other than the
charging handle.
Q.
Was the charging handle attached to
anything?
A.
The charging handle is in a slot on the
side of the receiver.
Q.
So it had a receiver?
A.
No. In a PKM, it's in a receiver by
definition of ATF only. But in the defendant's case,
it is no t a receiver, in my opinion. That was just a
misstatement of my own.
Okay. So are you familiar with the
Q.
definition of firearm under the Gun Control Act?
A.
A firearm is a weapon that discharges a
0036
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0037
1
2
3
4
projectile from means of an explosive.

Q.
Does that definition also include, the GCA
definition, also include the frame or receiver?
A.
It does because the frame or receiver is
classified as a firearm.
Q.
So if there's a frame or receiver, i t
would be a firearm?
A.
It would be, yes.
Q.
Are you familiar with the definition of
firearms under the National Firearms Act?
A.
A firearm? Not right off.
Q.
Not right off?
A.
Other than what I've already stated .
Do you know what the basic categories of
Q.
fire arms are under the National Firearms Act? Sort
o f what the different types are that people generally
have?
A.
Suc h as automatics? Semi-automatics?
Q.
I was thinking sort of like a short-barrel
rifle, a short - barrel shotgun, any other weapon .
Destructive device, suppressor, muffler,
A.
machinegun, any other weapon.
Q.
Those different things are firearms under
the National Firearms Act, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Does the defendant meet either of these
definitions? Either the GCA definition or any of the
National Firearms Act definitions?
A.
In my opinion?
1351
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 16 of27
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Yes.
A.
No.
Q.
Is it also your opinion that anyone who
has more than a basic knowledge of firearms would
know that the defendant is not a firearm?
A.
Yes, that is my opinion.
Q.
Are you aware that Historic Arms filed an
ATF Form 2 registering the defendant as a
short-barrel rifle?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You are?
A.
Q.
So did Mr. Savage make an incorrect
statement when he submitted that Form 2?
MR. MONROE: Objection. He hasn't
testified that he's seen the Form 2 or that he
knows such statements were made.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) I'll rephrase it. Since
your expert testimony and your report concludes that
the defendant is not a firearm, but since you're
aware of the fact that Mr. Savage filed an ATF Form 2
0038
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
saying that the defendant is a firearm, do you think

he made an incorrect statement in submitting that
form?
MR. MONROE: Same objection. He hasn't
testified that he knows of any statements; only
that it was registered.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) You can go ahead and
answer the question. The objection has been noted.
A.
I don't necessarily disagree in the way he
filed a Form 2. It was his opinion. I don't believe
his filing of the Form 2 was stating that it was a
firearm in the sense that you're talking about. He
was narrowing the market, in my opinion .
Q.
So do you think he was correct that it is
a short-barreled rifle?
A.
No . In my opinion, no.
Q.
He's incorrect?
A.
In my opinion, yes.
Q.
What is the purpose of an ATF Fo rm 2?
A.
A Form 2 is a notice of manufacture.
Q.
Who submits that?
A.
An 07 manufacturer with a Class 2 tax
stamp.
And the purpose of that is t o do what?
Q.
Is to register the firearm that has been
A.
0039
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
manufactured .
Q.
So your expert opinion and your report are
a direct contradiction of what the manufacturer said
this firearm is, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you think that Historic Arms was
incorrect in their classification?
MR. MONROE: Objection. Asked and
answered.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) As a manufacturer of
firearms, are there specific markings you're supposed
t o put on a firearm when you manufacture it.
A.
The name of the company, the model, the
serial number, and the state in which the
manufacturer has manufactured the firearm.
Q.
Where must the manufacturer place that
1352
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/09 l 809JA. TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 17 of27
17
18
informati on?
A.
Visible on the receiver .
Q.
Now, is that different for a Gun Control
Act firearm versus a National Firearms Act firearm?
A.
No.
Q.
So that information must be on the
receiver?
A.
Or body of the suppressor.
Okay. In the case of the defendant, did
Q.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0040
Historic Arms place any marks on the firearm?
1
A.
I do not remember.
2
You do not recall?
3
Q.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A.
No .
I'm going to pass you what we'll just call
for today Object 1. Do you know what that is?
A.
Yes.
What is that?
Q.
This is an Ml6Al Hydra-Matic machinegun
A.
receiver.
Q.
How do you know it's a machinegun?
A.
By the machinegun inside of the trigger
body as well as the third pin hole for your automatic
disconnecter .
Q.
Is that a machinegun as you hold it in
your hands?
A.
Yes; by ATF standards. By the letter of
the law; yes.
Q.
And isn't the law that defines
Yes .
A.
Q.
the definition of what is a machinegun
or not?
Absolutely.
A.
Q.
Now
A.
But i t does not retain a bolt. It's not
Q.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0041
1
threaded.
Q.
Fair enough. The Object 1 in front of
2
you, as it sits right now, can it expel a proj ectile
3
--
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
by means of explosive?
A.
No.
Q.
But it's still a machinegun?
A.
Absolutely.
Q.
Why is that?
A.
Because ATF has classified it as such.
Q.
Okay. The item that has been labele d
Ob j e ct 1, does it have any mechanism to retain the
reco il spring or buffer?
A.
Yes.
Q.
It does? What is that?
A.
Well, in the threads.
Q.
The threads?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
The threads themselves will retain it ?
A.
It will retain the buffer tube .
The buffer tube. So the buffer tube
Q.
actual l y re tains the recoil spring and the buffer?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay. Now, based on your report, you said
that the defendant is a non-firearm and that the
mechanism that retained the recoil spring, the
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0042
operating rod, and the buffer in the defendant we re
1
2
actually the machinegun, were a machinegun conversio n
1353
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 18of27
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
part, correct?
A.
Can you repeat that?
Q.
Yes. Based on your report, you said that
the defendant is actually nothing -A.
Right.
Q.
-- but the chain, the tensioning bolt, and
the metal plate that were attached to the rear,
they're actually a conversion device?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Because they retain the recoil spring, the
operating rod, and the buffer?
A.
Yes.
Q.
If that's the case, then based on your
same expert opinion, wouldn't the buffer tube be a
conversion device for that receiver, as well?
MR. MONROE: Could you clarify what
receiver you're speaking of?
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Object 1, based on your
testimony that the pieces that retain the operating
rod, the recoil spring, and the buffer in the
defendant, similarly the buffer tube and the butt
stock for Object 1 would have t o be a conversion
device, as well?
0043
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
It depends on what type of upper you're
putting on this receiver.
Q.
How is that?
A.
Olympic Arms uses a piston-driven and has
since the '60s. If you use a Government issue
.22-caliber retainer insert, the screen is inside the
upper and you can take the buffer off.
Q.
But based on your testimony about the
device used to capture the recoil spring, based on
that testimony, wouldn't you have to call the buffer
and the butt stock on this firearm a conversion
device?
A.
On this firearm, no.
Q.
No?
(Witness shakes head in the negative.)
A.
Q.
Let's go back to the defendant and your
examination of it. When you conducted the
examination of the defendant you said you took some
measurements and you measured the left hand rail,
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What else did you see when you opened up
the defendant and looked inside?
A.
Such as?
Q.
What did you see? What was inside when
0044
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
you opened the top cover and looked into the

defendant, what did you see?
A.
You have an insert that's been installed
to use a MAC lower. Part of the original semi-auto
receiver had been cut away to allow the MAC upper to
be welded in.
Q.
What part of that original semi-automatic
receiver was that?
A.
It was the lower section that had been
removed.
Q.
Now, you said earlier or in your
qualifications you testified that you are very
familiar with PK machineguns; is that correct?
A.
Yes.
1354
https ://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283 099/091809JA.TXT
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 19 of27
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0045
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Are you familiar with the differences
between semi-automatic PK receivers and
fully-automatic PK receivers?
MR . MONROE: I'm going to object . We're
getting back into th CV again.
MR. FOSTER: No. This is directly
regarding to the difference between a semi and a
full. This has everything to do with the
question here.
MR. MONROE: I'm going to instruct the
witness not to answer because it's covered in
the CV, in the part of the deposition concerning
the CV.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) I'm going to put in front
of you Object 2. Do you know what Object 2 is?
A.
It's a semi-automatic PKM receiver.
Q.
How do you know that?
A.
I read the stamp on the side. It's made
by Vltor.
Q.
Vltor doesn't make fully-automatic
receivers?
A.
I'm sure they do.
Q.
I don't see anywhere on this -- can you
read what it says on the side?
A.
It says Vltor Weapon Systems, and it does
not say semi-automatic.
Q.
So you are incorrect then that you read on
the side it was semi-automatic?
A.
Okay. Yes.
Q.
Okay. So is that a semi-automatic or
fully-automatic receiver?
A.
It's a semi-automatic receiver.
Q.
How do you know that?
A.
Because I can see that the left rail is
enlarged .
Q.
Do you know what other features
0046
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0047
A.
There is a bar that has been installed in
the lower portion of the receiver.
Q.
What's the purpose of that bar?
A.
Honestly, I don't know because there's two
different designs. The early one and then the later
one, which you have here. There's an engagement
point for a full-auto bolt carrier.
Q.
Is the purpose -- I'm sorry.
A.
To block a full-auto bolt carrier.
Q.
It's to block a full-auto bolt carrier.
When you examined the defendant firearm, did you see
a blocking bar?
A.
No.
Q.
Why not?
A.
Because the MAC upper has been installed
in its place .
So Historic Arms had removed the blocking
Q.
bar?
A.
The whole lower part of the receiver
itself.
Q.
But it included the blocking bar?
A.
It did include the blocking bar.
Q.
Now, you stated a moment ago that the
earlier ones were different. How were they
different?
1355
RIF
9/30/2009
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 20 of27
A.
They have a channel machinegun to the left

I'm sorry, right side.
Q.
What's the purpose of that channel?
A.
Again, I do not know. It must not be any
purpose because they don't do it now.
Q.
Now, you testified earlier that the left
side rail on the defendant has been -- it's an
increased size?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Increased width than the standard PK
machinegun. What is the purpose of that?
A.
To keep people from installing a full-auto
bolt carrier.
Q.
Now, when you examined the defendant, did
it have a bolt carrier?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Well, tell me about the bolt carrier. Was
it a semi-automatic bolt carrier?
A.
The bolt carrier, as a PKM, had been
neutered completely. It was not a full-auto PKM bolt
carrier anymore.
Q.
How is that?
A.
Because the entire engagement point at the
bottom had been removed, rewelded, and a new
MAC-style engagement point had been put in its place.
side
0048
1
Q.
The bolt carrier, though, was it designed
2
to allow automatic fire?
A.
The bolt carrier itself?
3
4
Q.
Correct.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
It's just an engagement point. Yes, I
assume so.
Q.
And my next question was: Did you
actually see the defendant fire automatically?
A.
Yes; on a machinegun lower.
Q.
Did it not fire automatically with a
chain, a plate and a -A.
With a conversion device on it, it did.
Q.
Did you take apart the bolt? Did you take
the bolt out of the bolt carrier?
A.
No, I did not.
Q.
Do you know if that was a semi-automatic
bolt or a fully-automatic bolt?
A.
I assume it was a fully-automatic bolt.
Q.
Do you believe that Historic Arms
intentionally opened the groove on the left side of
its bolt to allow its installation into a
semi-automatic receiver?
A.
No.
Q.
Then what was the purpose of widening the
channel?
25
0049
A.
I don't know.
1
2
Q.
You don't know. Now, you said that it
fired automatically because it had converted the
3
chain, the bolt, and a plate or a conversion device?
4
5
A.
Uh-huh.
Q.
And is the conversion device to turn a
6
7
semi-automatic PK into a full-automatic PK?
A.
Any MAC style upper.
8
9
10
11
12
Q.
So what you're saying then is that the
chain, the bolt, and the plate would not convert a
semi-automatic PK into a machinegun?
A.
No; because you don't need to put it on a
1356
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 21 of27
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0050
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0051
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PKM machinegun.
Q.
I said a semi-automatic PK.
A.
You don't need to put it on a
semi-automatic PKM rifle.
Q.
But it would not turn a semi-automatic PK
into a machinegun?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Do you know about approximately how many
variations of the PK machinegun have been produced?
A.
How many variations?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Current?
Q.
Yes.
Still in use?
Ever.
A.
Still in use, two.
Q.
Still in use, two. But in the history of
the PK firearm.
A.
Well, the PK family of weapons starts in
1943. You have all kinds of experimental models.
There's less than 50 produced. I don't know.
Q.
But they're all machineguns?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do their parts interchange?
A.
Not all of them, no.
Q.
So the fact that the parts don't
interchange doesn't mean that a subsequent model is
not still a PK-type design machinegun?
A.
No.
Q.
Can you explain the firing sequence of a
PK machinegun?
A.
Can you elaborate on that?
Q.
Sure. You take a PK machinegun and a belt
of ammunition, explain to me what happens. How you
put the ammunition in and what happens once you pull
the trigger mechanically.
A.
You have a fork on the top of the bolt
carrier that removes the round of about -- in a
A.
Q.
full-auto gun, it holds to the rear until the trigger

is pulled. When the engagement point breaks on the
bottom of the bolt carrier, it puts the round into
the barrel. The bolt carrier goes forward, puts the
round in the barrel, and the bolt closes and locks in
the battery and it fires.
As it fires, the fork is grabbing another
round out of the belt. And off of gas through the
gas cylinder, it continues to run as long as the
trigger is pulled.
Q.
Can you tell me what the firing sequence
is on the defendant?
A.
The firing sequence is the same.
Q.
So it operates identically to a PK
machinegun?
A.
When installed on a MAC lower, yes.
Q.
Does the defendant fire from an open bolt?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is meant by open bolt as the common
term in the industry?
A.
The bolt is retained at the rear until the
trigger is pulled and an engagement point is broken,
and then a round is loaded into a chamber. There is
no round in the chamber beforehand as with a closed

1357
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 22 of27
25
bolt.
0052
Q.
1
A.
2
Q.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0053
Is the PK fired from an open bolt?

Yes.
Are there any open-bolt semi-automatic
firearms currently in production in the United
States?
Not currently in production, no.
A.
Q.
Does the defendant utilize a fixed firing
pin?
A.
Yes.
Q.
It is a fixed firing pin?
A.
Q.
Does a PK have a fixed firing pin?
A.
Yes; same firing pin.
Q.
Are there any fixed firing pins
semi-automatic firearms in production in the United
States?
Today?
A.
Q.
Currently, yes.
A.
For sale to the public?
Q.
Yes. Currently available and unregulated.
A.
No.
Why are there no open-bolt semi-automatic
Q.
firearms?
A.
Because it's illegal to manufacture
semi-automatic weapons for sale to the general
1
2
public.
Q.
3
4
5
6
A.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0054
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
It's illegal -I'm sorry, open bolt; sorry, pardon.

Q.
That's all right. You're more than
allowed to clarify your answers. Are open-bolt
operation and the use of a fixed firing pin design
characteristics of a machinegun?
A.
No.
Did you not just testify that you could
Q.
not have those, though, in a semi-automatic firearm?
A.
That doesn't claim to be a machinegun.
It's just someone said you can't have an open-bolt
semi-automatic for sale to the general public. It
doesn't say that it's a machinegun. I have three '82
semi-automatic-only weapons that are open-bolt fixed
firing pin.
Q.
Since 1982, have open-bolt operation and
fixed firing pins been exclusively allowed only in
machineguns?
A.
No. That technology is obsolete.
Q.
That technology is obsolete?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So no one has produced -A.
Yes, they had been produced, but not in
the U.S.
Q.
Have you produced a fully automatic PK
rnachinegun since 1982?
A.
Me?
Q.
Yes.
A.
No.
Q.
Are they still being produced, though?
A.
I'm sorry, repeat your question one more
time.
The first question about producing -Q.
A.
Yes, the first question about produc ing a
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/283099/09 l 809JA. TXT

1358
RIF
9/30/2009
Page 23 of27
11
PKM.
12
13
1982?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0055
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0056
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
Have you produced a PKM machinegun since
A.
No, I have not.
Q.
Okay. Have other c ompanies produc ed, f or
commercial sale to the Government and l aw
enforcement, PK machineguns since 1982?
A.
Yes, they have.
Q.
Even though that's obsolete technology?
A.
Absolutely. We're still producing a
Browning M250 caliber.
Q.
So the Browning M250 is obsolete, as well?
A.
Well, in a lot of circles, it is, yes.
But just because it's still being produced doesn't
mean it ' s state of the art or the right thing to do .
Q.
When a manufacturer designs a machinegun,
does that machinegun always have to be referred back
to an existing model or can a manufacturer create an
entirely new model of their own?
A.
Create an entirely new model.
Q.
Did Historic Arms create an entirely new
variety of PK when they created the defendant?
A.
An e ntirely new model of?
Q.
PK machinegun.
A.
No . In my opinion, it's just an upper.
Q.
But you admit that that upper will expel
pro jectiles?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you admit that that upper contains
what started out as a complete semi-aut omatic
receiver?
A.
Yes.
Q.
That receive r is still there present in
the defendant?
A.
Most of it.
Q.
Most of it. And that rec eiver has the
connecting points for the front trunnion?
A.
The fro nt trunnion is rive ted int o it .
Q.
That receiver has the rai l s to allow t he
bolt to go forward and back?
A.
Q.
Yes.
That receiver has a sl ot for an operating
handle?
A.
Yes.
That receiver has atta c hme nt points f o r a
fire control group?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Is it not just a receive r then?
A.
Not in my opinion, no .
It might not be a PK receiver as
Q.
traditionally thought of, but is it not a PK receiver
of its own design?
A.
No. It is a MAC upper bas e d on a PK-style
firearm feed mechanism, basically .
Q.
Is t here a portion o f a MAC upper in the
defendant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that portion of a MAC upper considered
a firearm?
A.
No.
Q.
But isn ' t most of that r eceiver c omprised
of what was once a semi-automatic PK receiver ?
Q.
1359
RIF
9/ 30/2009

23
24
25
0057
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0058
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0059
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Page 24 of27
MR . MONROE: When you say, "that
receiver," what do you
Q.
(By Mr . Foste r) The defendant . Isn't the
defendant mainl y composed of a semi-automatic PK

receiver?
A.
When you say most of it, do you want,
what, 75 percent of it is PK receiver and 25 is MAC?
Q.
Yo u're the expert. Tell me.
A.
I don't know what the percentage is of
either piece . You can't take a PK l ower and put back
into it. It uses a MAC disconnector surface in the
body. It is a MAC upper.
Q.
But haven't you seen it fire without the
MAC there, as well?
A.
So will a MAC upper.
MR . FOSTER: If we c ould, let's take about
a five-minute break.
MR . MONROE: Sure.
(Recess from 1:54 p . m. t o 2 : 22 p.m.)
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) Mr . Mayo , I j ust want t o
go through a few definitions real quick, and then
we're going to be done with you. Earlier you
testified you were familiar in general with the
definition of firearms under the Gun Contro l Act; is
that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
At that point I believe you stated it had
something to do with the ability t o expel proj ectile?
A.
Yes .
I'm going t o read the definition of the
Gun Control Act's definition o f fir earm, and I want
you to tell me whether or no t that is the actual
definition .
Title 18 United States Code Section
921 ( 1) ( 3) reads: The term firearm means, (A), any
weapon including a starter gun, which will or is
designed to or may readily be c onvert ed to e xpel a
projectile by the action of an explosive; (B), the
frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C), any
firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or, (D), any
destructive device. The term does not include an
antique firearm. Is that the definition under the
Gun Control Act of a firearm?
MR. MONROE : Counsel, are you just asking
him to say whether he thinks you read the Code
correctly?
MR. FOSTER : I'm asking h i m whether or not
that is the definition of firearm.
MR. MONROE : I'll obj ect on the ground it
calls for a legal conclusion. You can answer if
you know.
THE WITNESS: I don't quit e understand
what you're asking about reading.
Q.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) What I j ust read, is that
the definition under the Gun Control Act of a
firearm?
MR . MONROE: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Under the Gun Control Ac t
o f?
Q.
(By Mr. Fo s t er ) 1 968 , t he GCA.
A.
Sure .
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/2 83099/0918091 A.TXT

1360
RIF
9/30/2009
..
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0060
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Page 25 of27
Q.
It is?
Do you agree that that definition
is correct?
MR. MONROE: Objection. Are you asking
him if the law is correct?
MR. FOSTER:
I'm asking him if he believes
that definition was correct or if he disagrees
with that definition.
MR. MONROE: I don't understand the
question.
MR. FOSTER: Withdrawn. At this time, we
don't have any further questions.
MR. MONROE: I don't have any questions.
reserved.)
Examination
Page
3
27

Cross-Examination by Mr. Foster
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
10
11
Plaintiff's
Exhibit
Description
Page
12
l
13
14
15
22
CMP Armory Report
(Original Exhibit 1 has been attached to the

original transcript.)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0061
1
2
3
STATE OF GEORGIA:
4
COUNTY OF FULTON:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
a true, complete, and correct transcript o f the
12
13
14
15
16
17
case.
1361
RIF
9/30/2009
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0062
1
Page 26 of27
"


[ORIGINAL ON FILE]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Pursuant to Article 8.B. of the Rules and Regulations

counsel to the parties or other entity. Such form
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0063
1
2
3
DEPOSITION OF JAMES A. MAYO, JR./JRN

me on the 18TH day of September, 2009, taken before
5
6
7
8
9

Annotated 9-11-30(e), both of which read in part:
1362
RIF
9/3 0/2009
Page 27 of27
' l
10
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
25
0064
Page No.
1
2
Page No.
3
Line No.
should read:
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

deposition.
16
17
JAMES A. MAYO, JR.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

This the
day of
, 20
Notary Public
1363
RIF
9/30/2009

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO CLAIMANT'S
FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the United States of America, Plaintiff in the above-styled case,
hereby responds to Claimant Historic Arms' First Discovery Requests
as follows:
INTERROGATORIES
1. State the "criteria and methods used to classify your firearm as

a machine gun" as referred to in your letter of July 11, 2008.
RESPONSE: The criteria and methods used to classify the Defendant
Firearm
as
machinegun
are
described
evaluation letter (2008-472-MMK).
and
depicted
in
the
See Attachment 1.
2. Identify all design features of a machine gun exhibited by this

device as referred to in paragraph 2 of your letter of July 11,
2008.
RESPONSE: The Defendant Firearm contains a frame or receiver of a
PK
type
machinegun.
Additionally,
1364
the
Defendant
Firearm
RIF
incorporates
the
following
design
features
commonly
found
on
machinequns: open bolt operation and a fixed firing pin.
3. Describe how the device "would be readily restorable to shoot

automatically as a machine gun" as referred to in the second
paragraph of your letter of July 11, 2008.
RESPONSE :
To construct the Defendant Firearm, a semiautomatic PK
type receiver was modified by removing the machinequn bolt blocking

bar that is required in a semiautomatic PK type receiver to prevent
installation of PK machinegun parts and automatic fire.
The act of
removing the machinequn bolt blocking bar created a machinequn as

defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845 (d).
Since the ability of the Defendant
Firearm to fire was prevented due to the lack of a rear trunnion

(back plate); simply trapping the recoil spring within the receiver
returned the Defendant Firearm to firing condition .
4. Describe all alterati ons made to the device prior to or duri ng

testing and describe the reasons for such alte rations.
RESPONSE:
All
alterations
made
to
the
Defendant
Firearm
are
described and depicted in Attachment 1 .
5. Describe why you removed the factory trigger prior t o tes ting of
the device.
RESPONSE:
ATF
did not
remove
any
trigger
from
the
Defendant
Firearm.
6. Identify all cases where ATF Firearms Enforceme nt Office r Ma x

Kingery has testified in court or in deposition.
1365
RIF
RESPONSE: See Attachment 2.
7. Identify all experts you intend to call at the trial of this

action and provide the information about those experts, according
to Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
RESPONSE: Firearms Enforcement Officer Max M. Kingery and Assistant
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch Richard Vasquez.
8. Identify all licenses held by Len Savage issued by ATF.

RESPONSE:
Savage.
There are no Federal Firearms Licenses issued to Len

Mr. Savage is a responsible person on a Federal Firearms
License issued to Historic Arms LLC (1-58-149-07-lG-01270) .
9.
For each Request for Admission that is deni ed,
provide an
explanation of the denial.

RESPONSE: Answered with each individual response.
10. Identify every document, record, memorandum, and corre spondence

in your possession or control relating to the HA54RCCS a nd your
evaluation of it.
11. Identify each person involved in your testing of th e HA54RCCS

and what role each person played in the testing.
RESPONSE: The term "testing" is undefined, but for purposes of the
classification of the
Defendant Firearm as
machinequn,
the
"testing" was performed by Firearms Enforcement Officer Max M.

Kingery.
12 . Identify each person involved in your dete rminat i on t hat the
1366
RIF
HA54RCCS is a machinegun, and what role each person played in the

determination.
RESPONSE:
Firearms
Enforcement
Officer
(FEO)
examined and classified the Defendant Firearm.

Firearms
Technology
Branch
Richard
M.
Max
Kingery
Assistant Chief,
Vasquez
reviewed
classification as FEO Kingery' s first line supervisor.
the
Chief,
Firearms Technology Branch John Spencer reviewed the classification

as FEO Kingery's second line supervisor.
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
1. Provide copies of all testing procedures and manuals used to

examine the defendant device.

determine that the device was a machine gun.
RESPONSE: See Attachment 1 and Attachment 4.
3.
Provide
copies
of all
criteria
used by the
Plaintiff to
determine that the Defendant device was a machine gun.

4. Provide copies of all working notes, in whatever form originally

docurnented(written, typed, computer generated, video, etc.) during
testing of the device.
RESPONSE: No such documents exist.
5. Provide copies of all ATF documents that refer or relate to

Historic Arms, Inc. or Len Savage.
1367
RIF
RESPONSE: Objection, this request is over broad and potentially not

relevant.
Plaintiff has self-limited its response to include only
documents that refer to or relate to "Historic Arms, LLC," "Len

Savage," and the Defendant Firearm that were created from April 20,
2008 (the date on which the Defendant Firearm was submitted to ATF)
until present.
Documents that are not withheld due to privilege
are provided in Attachment 3.
6. Provide copies of all ATF documents which refer or relate to the

subject device.
RESPONSE: See Attachments 1 and 3.
7. Provide copies of all video recordings or depictions of the

testing of the device.
RESPONSE: DVDs of the test firing of the Defendant Firearm on April
15, 2009 were previously released to Claimant's counsel.
DVDs of
the examination and test firing of the Defendant Firearm on June

10, 2009 are attached as Attachment 5.
8. Provide copies of all ATF testing of the Anthony Smith Mll/9

upper together with all documents related to the testing of that
device.
RESPONSE: Objection, this material may contain confidential tax
information whose release
Additionally,
this
is prohibited by 26 U.S.C.
material
is
not
relevant
and may
6103.
contain
proprietary infoi:mation whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U.S. C.
1905.
Furthermore, Claimant is already in possession of this
1368
RIF
document as he has presented a copy of this document to the United

States Attorney's Office.
9. Provide copies of all ATF testing of the Calico Upper for the
MAC 10 and M-11 series together with all documents related to the
testing of that device.
information whose release is prohibited by 26 U.S.C.
Additionally,
this
material
is
not
relevant
and may
6103.
contain
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U.S.C.
1905.

10. Provide copies of all ATF testing of the Fl emming type 22 Upper
for the MAC 10 and M-11 series together with all documents related
to the testing of that device.
Additionally,
this
material
is
not
relevant
and may
6103.
contain
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U.S.C.
1905.

11. Provide copies of all ATF testing of the Stoney Creek Upper for
the MAC 10 and M-11 series together with all documents related to
1369
RIF
the testing of that device.

!mSPONSE: Objection, this material may contain confidential tax
Additionally,
this
material
is
not
relevant
and may
6103.
contain
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibi tad by 18 U.S . C .
1905.

States Attorney's Office .
12.
Produce all ATF Safety Protocols and testing procedures.
!mSPONSE:
Objection,
this
request is
documents that are not relevant.

to
include
testing procedures
over broad and requests
ATF has self limited this request

that were used to evaluate the
Defendant Firearm and previously produced as Attachment 4.
13. Produce all proposed procedures referred to in:

a. Letter from Lewis P. Raden dated March 2, 200 6;
b. Congressional Research Service memorandum dated Octobe r 19 , 2005
and statements supplied by ATF July 2005,
Sep tember 2005 a nd
October 2005.
!mSPONSE: Objection, this request is not relevant as i t pertains to
documents written over two years prior to Claimant's submission of
the Defendant Firearm for classification which is the crux of this
case .
Furthermore, this request is vague as Plaintiff is unable to
determine what Claimant is referring to when i t requests "proposed

procedures."
Finally, Plaintiff is not the custodian of some or
1370
RIF
all of the documents souqht.
14. Produce all ATF Documents which refer to a shoestring as being

classified {or not classified} as a machine gun.
RESPONSE:
Objection, this material may contain confidential tax
information whose release is prohibited by 2 6

Additionally,
this
material
is
not
relevant
U.S. C.
and may
6103 .
contain
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U.S. C.
1905.

15. Provide copies of all documents reviewed or prepared by any

expert that you have consulted or that you intend on testifying at
the trial or deposition in this matter.
RESPONSE: These documents have either been previously produced to
Claimant or have been produced in Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
16. Provide copies of all documents that you intend to use or

introduce at any deposition or at trial of this action.
17. Produce for inspection and testing, pursuant to prior agreement

of counsel,
the device and additional materials used in your
testing
the
of
device,
including
but
not
limited
to chain,
tensioning bolts, plate, duct tape, and tie wraps. Such production
shall take place at 1 p.rn. on June 10, 2009 at the Coweta County
1371
RIF
(Georgia)
Sheriff's Department range.
accompanied
by
ATF
personnel
Such production shall be
familiar
with
the
testing
you
performed on the device who can demonstrate the testing performed.

RESPONSE: This request was complied with in full on June 10, 2009.
18.
Produce every item identified in response to Interrogatory
Number 10 above.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
1. Admit that the determination of whether a device is a machinegun

is
not
based
on
whether
the
device
contains
parts
from
machinegun.
RESPONSE: Objection, the term "parts" has not been properly defined
by Claimant.
Objection, Claimant has defined the term "device" to
mean the Defendant Firearm for purposes of Discovery.
Accordinqly,
this request is both vaque and confusinq and Plaintiff cannot Admit
or Deny this statement as written.
2.
Admit
HA54RCCS
that
is
the
not
presence
of parts
determinative
of
from machineguns
whether
the
on the
HA54RCCS
is
machinegun.
RESPONSE: Objection, aqain the term "parts" has not been properly
defined by claimant.
DENIED.
The Defendant Firearm incorporates
the frame or receiver of a machinequn; as such, i t is itself a

"machinequn" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
3.
Admit
that
many
semiautomatic
1372
(non-NFA)
firearms
contain
RIF
machinegun parts.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED.
Semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms may
utilize common parts such as stocks, barrels,

sights,
grips,
clips,
and other parts
springs,
levers,
that do not facilitate
automatic fire.
4. Admit that you converted the HA54RCCS into a machinegun.

RESPONSE: DENIED.
contains
the
The Defendant Firearm is a machinegun as i t
frame
or
receiver
of
PK-type
machinegun.
Additionally,
the Defendant Firearm is a machinegun as i t was
designed
shoot,
to
or
can
be
readily
restored
to
shoot,

single function of the trigger.
5. Admit that you employed a "collection of parts" that, together

with the HA54RCCS, comprise a machine gun.
RESPONSE:
DENIED.
contains a frame or receiver of a PK type machinegun.
The simple
addition of parts to capture the recoil spring of the Defendant

Firearm inside
its
receiver
returned
the
device
to
firing
condition.
6. Admit that the HA54RCCS is not a machinegun.

RESPONSE:
DENIED.
contains
the
The Defendant Firearm is a
frame
or
receiver
of
machinegun as i t
PK-type
machinegun.
Additionally,
designed
shoot,
to
or
can
be
1373
readily
restored
to
shoot,
RIF

single function of the trigger
7. Admit that, without modification, the HA54RCCS as submitted to

FTB will not automatically fire more than one shot with a single
RISPONSE:
DENIED.
The
term
"modification"
is
not defined and
therefore the plaintiff cannot respond to this request.
8. Admit that the HA54RCCS is what is commonly referred to as a MAC

'upper.'
RESPONSE: DENIED. The Defendant Firearm is a PK-type machinagun
receiver
that has
been modified by
(among
other
things)
the
addition of a portion of a MAC-type upper.
9. Admit that a MAC upper is not a machine gun.

RESPONSE: Admit, an unmodified MAC-type upper is not a machinegun.
10. Admit that the HA54RCCS will not automatically fire more than
one shot with a single function of the trigger when installed on a
semiautomatic MAC lower.
RESPONSE: DENIED, for the following reasons:
a.
The Defendant Firearm is capable of firing automatically when
attached to a semiautomatic MAC-type receiver.

b.
It is not required that the Defendant Firearm be attached to a
second receiver in order to restore i t to a firing condition.
11. Admit that FTB Chief John Spencer advised Claimant to register
the HA54RCCS as a short barreled rifle.
1374
RIF
RJ!iSPONSE : DENIED. Claimant submitted the Defendant Firearm to the

A'l'F' s
Firearms 'l'echnology Branch
Claimant
submitted
documentation
("F'l'B")
for evaluation after
attempting
to
register
the
Defendant Firearm as a "short barreled rifle" to A'l'F' s National

Firearms Act ("NFA") Branch.
Defendant Firearm,
Following F'l'B's evaluation of the
the Defendant Firearm was
"machinequn" as defined by 26 U.S . C. 5845(b) .

Branch were notified of F'l'B' s
classified as
Claimant and NFA
classification and Claimant was
provided with an opportunity to amend its registration application

and refused.
12. Admit that you accepted the registration of the HA54RCCS as a

short barreled rifle.
RESPONSE: DENIED .
Claimant filed an A'l'F Form 2 to register the
Defendant Firearm before Claimant submitted the Defendant Firearm

for classification.
Since Plaintiff relies upon manufacturers of
firearms to properly classify and register their firearms, the NFA

Branch processed the A'l'F Form 2 assuming Claimant had properly
identified the Defendant Firearm.
Upon the subsequent examination
and classification by the F'l'B, the Defendant Firearm's registration

was frozen a1lowing for Claimant to amend its A'l'F Form 2 to reflect
the Defendant Firearm's status as a machinequn.
This
10~
Day of July , 2009.

Respectfully Submitted,
DAVID E. NAHMIAS
1375
RIF

G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
GEORGIA BAR NO. 289074
600 U.S. COURTHOUSE
75 SPRING STREET, S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
(404)581-6036 - Office
1376
RIF

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
Defendant.
PLAI:NTIFF'S RESPONSES TO CLAIMANT'S
SECOND DISCOYERY REQUESTS
Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

hereby
responds
to
Claimant
Historic
Arms'
Second
Discovery
Requests as follows:
INTERROGATORIES
1.
Identify
and
describe
all
the
differences
between
the
semiautomatic and machinegun version of the PK-type firearm.

RESPONSE: A semiautomatic PK type firearm differs from a PK type
machinegun in that the semiautomatic PK type firearm utilizes a
striker-fired bolt that fires from the closed bolt.
Additionally,
the semiautomatic PK type firearm's receiver has widened bolt-guide

rails and a machinequn bolt blocking bar which are not present on
a PK type machinegun receiver .
2. Explain how you came to the conclusion that the PK receiver used
by Claimant in the manufacture of the Defendant came from a PK
1377
RIF
machinegun and not a semiautomatic version of a PK-type firearm. In

your
response,
include
discussion
of
how
you
applied the
differences you identified in response to Interrogatory # 1 above

to make your conclusion.
BESPONSE:
ATF has made no definitive statements regarding the
origin of the PK type machinegun receiver used in the assembly of

the Defendant Firearm.
The Defendant Firearm (as submitted by
Claimant for evaluation) is assembled with a machinegun receiver.

It was not known at the time of the initial evaluation if the
receiver was originally manufactured as a machinagun or was a
semiautomatic PK type receiver that was modified into a PK type
machinegun receiver prior to the initial evaluation.
Subsequent
statements submitted by Claimant and subsequent examinations show

that Claimant modified a semiautomatic PK type receiver into a PK
type
machinegun.
The
semiautomatic
features
described
Interrogatory No. 2, were removed or defeated by Claimant.
in
These
features were specified by ATF and designed by the semiautomatic

receivers' original manufacturer to prevent either a) installation
of unmodified machinegun fire-control components and/orb) function
of modified open-bolt machinegun fire-control components in an
unmodified semiautomatic receiver.
3. Identify the person or persons providing the substantive

information responsive to these discovery requests.
RESPONSE: Firearms Enforcement Officer Max M. Kingery, Assistant
1378
RIF
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch Richard Vasquez, Chief,

Firearms Technology Branch John Spencer.
4. Identify what provision{s) of Chapter 53 of Title 26 of the

U.S. Code you allege were violated giving rise to the seizure and
forfeiture of the Defendant. In your response, for each and every
element of such provision(s) you believe was {or were) violated,
identify the person{s) or entity{ies) responsible for the
violation{s) and what conduct of such person{s) or entity{ies)
met the requirements of such elements.
RESPONSE: In the document entitled "Complaint for Forfeiture,"
(Doc 1), Plaintiff plainly sets forth its legal theory for
forfeiture, citing to the relevant statutes in paragraphs nine
and ten.
5. Explain any denials to the Requests for Admissions below .

1. Admit that if you installed the sample MAC upper shown in the
Letter into the MAC frame used in your April 15, 2009 test-fire
video, with the fire control components removed (as in your testfire video), it would be expected to function in the same
manner as the Defendant, i.e., it would discharge a projectile by
means of an explosive and it would fire automatically more than one
shot with a single function of the trigger.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED .
The sample MAC machinequn upper, shown in the
Letter, will discharge a projectile by means of an explosive and
1379
RIF
will fire automatically more than one shot with a single function
of a trigger when attached to the MAC-type machinegun frame used in
the April 15, 2009 test-fire video.
2. Admit that if the chain, plate, and duct tape you installed on
the Defendant were installed on the sample MAC upper shown in the
Letter, it would be expected to discharge a projectile by means of
an explosive, and admit further that it would fire automatically
more than one shot with a single function of the trigger if an
arrununi ti on feeding device were in place t o
feed a
second or
additional round of ammunition.

RESPONSE: ADMITTED as to part one (ending in" an explosive").
DENIED as to part two.
The sample MAC upper does not have the
ability to accept and function with an ammunition feeding device

unless i t is extensively modified or attached to a MAC frame. Only
if i t is modified to accept an ammunition feeding device and fitted
with a chain, plate and duct tape to capture the recoil spring
'
would i t fire automatically.
3.
Admit that
Admission
the
assembled device
above
would
described in Request
constitute
GCA
firearm
for
and
machinegun.
RESPONSE: Objection, as to the form of the question, as multiple
firearms
and firearm components
Admission No . 2.
to
mean
the
are described in Request for
Objection, Claimant has defined the term "device"

Defendant
Firearm
1380
for
purposes
of
Discovery.
RIF
Accordingly, this request is both vague and confusing and Plaintiff

cannot Admit or Deny this statement as written.
4. Admit you do not regulate the individual items described in

Request for Admission # 2 above in any way.
RSPONSE: Objection to the form of the question, as i t is vague as
to what individual items i t refers to.
ADMITTED IN PART, assuming
the "individual items" referred to are the chain, plate, tensioning

bolt or duct tape, as they would not be regulated by ATF unless
they were intended specifically for use in a firearm.
referring to a MAC-type upper,
as that is a
DENIED, if
firearm part and
therefore regulated under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22

U.S.C. Chapter 2778.
5. Admit that Claimant is presently the true owner of Defendant,

and that if a forfeiture is not ordered in this case, Claimant's
claim for Defendant is sufficient for Defendant to be returned to
Claimant.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED in that Plaintiff does not challenge Claimant's
standing to contest this forfeiture action as an owner of the
Defendant Firearm.
This
lQth
Day of July, 2009.

Respectfully Submitted,
DAVID E. NAHMIAS

G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
1381
RIF

600 U.S. COURTHOUSE
(404)581-6036 - Office
1382
RIF
:~
'
U.S. Department (
..
.ustice
Bureau of Alcoh(ll, Tobacco,

(b) (6)
WashinJltlln, OC 20'.!16
W\\f\V.at(. ~,')\'
903050:(b) (6)
33 l l/2005-500
Mr. Leu Savage

President
Historic Arn1S LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Franklin, Georgia ~0217
Dear Mr. Savage:
This is iri reference to a classification sent to you on July 11, 2005 by the Firearm:; Technology
Branch (FTB), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding a
resubmission for examination and classi.fical'ion of a modified RPD 7.62x39mm-type upper
receiver assembly, designated lhe "BM-3000."
In our pxior correspondence with you we stated:
...
The reexamined, modified Historic Amu LLC "BM-3000" is a significantly redesigned assembly
when compared to an original RPD typefireann. The.frame, being designed to mate with the
frame or receiver ofan M-11/NINEmm typefirearm, wilf not allow the introduction ofan
original RPD bolt/bolT carrier assembly or a cocking handle.
In conclusion, FTB has determined that theframe ofthe submitted Historic Arms LLC "BM3000" does not constitute a frame or receiver ofa "firearm" as that term is defined in 18 U.S. C.
921 (a)(3). Additionally. the frame does not constitute a frame or receiver ofa ''nzachinegun"
as that term is defined iti 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
Upon reconsideration, we are hereby overturning that classification.
As you are aware, Lhe National Fiream1s Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines the tenn
"machinegun', as-
'
'"' ... any weapon which shoots, is designed co shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,
automatically more than one shot, without manual reloadilZg, by a single function ofthe trigger. .
This term shall also include the frame or receiver ofany such Weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination ofparts designed and in.tended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination ofparts from which a
1rlachinegun can be assembled ifsuch pans are in the possession or under the control of a
person.
..
1383
RIP
(
.
-2Mr. Len Savage
"Firearm" is defined i1118 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) of the Gun Control Act of J 968 (GCA), as
amended:
The term "firearm" means (A) 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
such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.
Such term does not inclu4e an antique firearm.
any
"Receiver" is defined in regulations implementing both the GCA and NFA, 27 C.F.R. 4 78.11
and 479.11, as "Thal part of a fireann which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or
breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually tlU"eaded at its forvvard portion io
receive the barrel."
The "BM-3000" is comprised of the following components:
Receiver.
Top cover assembly.
F orea.nn.
Gas system.
Barrel approximately20- l/2 inches long.
Bolt carrier assembly.
Bolt.assembly.
Metal receiver insert approximately 3.074 inches (78rnm) long.
Modified shoulder stock assembly.
The receiverofihis sampJe is marked "HISTORIC ARMS LLC FRANKLIN

and "BM-3000" (right side).
GA~'
(left side)
The reexamination by FTB revealed the following characteristics/features of the receiver
assembly:
Manufactured from three separate sections (seams are visible internally).

Sides machined to accommodate a lower receiver assembly of an M-11/NlNEmm type
fireann, preventing installation of an original RPD-type trigger group.
Two extensions added to the underside of the RPD receiver for an M-11/NINEmm
takedown. pin.
Bolt-carrier slots undersized to approximately .198 inch (5mm), preventing installation of
an original RPD bolt carrier.

Approximately 5.622 inches (16mm) of the left bolt-carrier slot filled with weld.
1384
RIF
'
"
-3-
Mr. Len Savage
Melal bar approximately 8.75 inches (22lmm) by .505 inch {13mm) welded to the
exterior of the left receiver wall.
Top cover assembly marked ~'III( 372 6". No alterations or modifications were noted.
Further, the examination of the "BM-3000" found that a metal bar, approximately 6.25 inches x
.181 inch, had been welded into the (previous) cocking handle slot. There were four visible
welds securing the har to the receiver wall.
When assembled onto a lower receiver of an M-11 !NINEmm tYPe firearm as intended, the bolt
assembly cannot be withdrawn to the rear unless the top cover assembly is lifted.
Since the "BM-3000" provides housing for the boll, breechblock and firing mechanism,
it is a ''receiver'' as defined in 27 C.F.R. 478.1 t and 47~.1 t. Further, while it is not

tl~aded at the forward end, it does provide an attachment point for the barrel. Therefore,
it is a fircarm" as defined in 18 U.$.<;. 92l(a)(3) as it is the frame or receiver of any
wc~ipOn which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projeclile by
0
the action of an explosive.

The 'cBM-3000'' is a "machinegun'' as defined in the NFA due to its design characteristics and
features, which facilitate the firing of more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger, and because it incorporates the frame or receiver of a machinegun. Its
design features include its ability to utilize the same RPD gas system and feed system. It is also
belt- fed. Further, while it has been modified such that jt will no longer accept an original RPD
bolt/bolt canier assembly, the modified bolt assembly supplied does not prevent automatic fire,
and in fact is designed such that the firearm will only function in the automatic mode. Also, a
semiautomatic .firearm typically is striker fired or hammer fired. The BM3000 is designed to
fire from the open bolt and does not utilize a striker or hammer but rather incorporates the firing
pin in the bolt itself.
Our initial classification stated that it was neither a "machinegun" nor a ".fireann." This was
based on the differences between an original RPD and the subrnitted sample. When viewed
independently, jt is apparent that U1c firearm submitted is designed to shoot automatically with
the adqition of the M-11/N.INE type lower receiver. The prior classification was also based
the fact that the cocking handle slot was welded shul However, this would not prevent the
fireann from being fired were it to be assembled_
on
Further, if an M-11/NINE type submachinegun lower receiver is possessed along with the "BM3000'>, it would also be a machinegun as,it would be a combination of parts ftom which a
machinegun can be assembled_ This is because it appears that when the M-11/NINE type lower
receiver is adde~ it will fire more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function
1385
RIF
(
,.
-4-
Mr. Len Savage

of the trigger. We did not test fire the sample submitled ai; a complete fitted sample was not
provided.
The "BM-3000" is subject to all of the controls of the NFA and GCA. Manufacture of tlle
rnachincgun for resale would be restricted to persons holding a manufacturer's license under the
GCA and qualified as Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOT) wider the NFA.
These .findings are applicable only to the specific item as submittc~. Any alterations, or
modifications to the "Bl\'.I-3000" may affect this classification and subject the assembly to
further review.
It should aJso be noted that attaching a registered pre-1986 M-11/NINE type submachincgun
lower receiver to the "BM-3000" does not result in a machinegun Lhat can he lega11y trausferred
to, or possessed by, the general public. 18 U.S.C. 922(0) prohibits the manufacture of
machineguns after May 19, 1986, for other than law enforcement use. Attaching a prc-1986
M-11/NINE type lower receiver to the "BM-3000" resulls in the manufacture of a new and
different machinegun Lhal hears liLLle resemblance to the prel986 registered mac.:hincgtUl.
The new firearm has many of the characteristics of an RPO. Little is left that resembles the
M-1 l/NINE. TI1e M-11/NTNE type submachinegun lower receiver is used merely as a fire
control system. Accordingly, the resulting weapon would not be a macltinegun that was lawfully
possessed prior to May 19, 1986, and can only be manufactured, transferred, and possessed for
law enforcement use.
In addition, .assembly of the two receivers amounts to ..makingu a machinegun under the NFA
which requires filing an ATF Form 1, or, in the case of a qualified Special Occupational
Taxpayer, 311 ATF Form 2, to register the newly assembled machinegun.
We trust the foregoing was responsive to your request for a classification.
Sincerely yours,
Sterling Nixon
1386
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 1 of 32
IN THE l'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ATLANTA DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1:09-CV-00192-GET

)
)
SYSTEM" MACHINEGUN, SERIAL NO. Vl, )
)
)
Defendant.
CLAIMANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Introduction
Plaintiff brought this action for forfeiture of Defendant, a caliber conversion
device invented and owned by Claimant. Plaintiff claims that the Defendant is a
machinegun and was used in violation of federal firearms laws. Claimant will
show that the Defendant is not a machinegun but that, even if it were, it was not
used in violation of federal firearms laws and is therefore not subject to forfeiture.
Because Claimant is the true owner of Defendant, judgment must be entered in
favor of Defendant and Defendant must be returned to Claimant.
Background
Claimant Historic Arms, LLC, is a Special (Occupational) Taxpayer
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1387
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 2 of 32
("SOT") and Federal Firearms Licensee ("FFL"). Second Deel. of Lennis Savage,
~
3. In those capacities, Claimant is permitted under federal law to manufacture
and sell firearms' and NFA firearms (including machineguns). 26 U.S.C. 5851,
5852, 5861.
Because machineguns manufactured since May 19, 1986 are banned for
general citizen ownership [18 U.S.C. 922(0); 27 U.S.C. 479.105], the owner of
a "pre-ban" machinegun has an incentive to make his existing machinegun as

versatile as possible. 2110 Savage Deel., ~ 4. For that reason, it is popular among
machinegun owners to equip the machineguns with caliber conversion devices, so
that the machineguns may be used to shoot a variety of ammunition calibers. For
example, the "MAC" type machinegun, originally made for .380 ACP, 9 mm and
.45 ACP (i.e., "pistol caliber") ammunition, could, through the use of a caliber
conversion device, shoot rifle calibers as well. Id.,
5. It is against this landscape
The term "firearm" has multiple legal meanings. Under the Gun Control Act
("GCA"), 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(3), a firearm means "(A) any weapon (including a
starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a
projectile by means of an explosive, (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or fiream1 silencer; or (D) any destructive device ... "
Under the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 26 U.S.C. 5845 (a) (3)(4) and (6), a
firearm means, inter alia. a machinegun or a short barreled rifle. In this Brief,
"firearm" shall mean the GC A definition unless otherwise noted.
1
1:09CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1388
21 Page
RIF
/
/
that the present case arises.
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 3 of 32
On or about April 21, 2008, Lennis Savage, President of Claimant, /

completed the manufacture of Defendant. Id., if 6. The purpose of Defendant is to
act as a caliber conversion device for the owner of a MAC type machinegun. Id., ,
7. When installed on a MAC machinegun, Defendant converts the caliber of the
MAC to 7.62X54R, a rifle cartridge commonly used in many former Eastern Bloc
firearms and for which surplus ammunition is readily available. Id., if 8.
While working on Defendant, Savage was in contact with the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") Firearms Technology Branch
("FTB") personnel. Id.,
ii 9.
Savage, an experienced manufactur~ and designer of
many firearm systems and components, submits most of his inventions to FTB for
classification to make sure there will be no regulatory issues with them. Id., iJ 10.
During Savage's discussions with John Spencer, Chief of the FTB, Spencer
expressed concern that Claimant was making a caliber conversion device that
would make a pistol-caliber MAC machinegun into a rifle caliber machinegun. Id.,
if
11. Savage asked Spencer what his specific concern was, and Spencer said he
did not like the idea of a device such as Defendant being available for sale without
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1389
3I Page
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 4 of 32
a background check, thus being lawfully sold "off the back of a pickup truck at a
gun show." Id.,
12. To address Spencer's concerns, Savage suggested that the
Defendant could have a barrel shorter than 16 inches attached to it and might
therefore fit the technical definition of a short-barreled rifle. 2 Id., ~ 13.
Because short-barreled rifles are NFA firearms, the transfer of one must be
approved by the ATF. Spencer expressed enthusiasm for Savage's suggestion, and
asked Savage "How soon can you get it here?"3 Id. ,
ii
14.
Savage quickly
I
completed the manufacture of Defendant with a barrel length of just less than 16
inches , registered it as a short-barreled rifled, and sent it to FTB for examination
as Spencer requested. Id.. ilil t 5-16.
On June 10, 2008, Spencer wrote Savage a letter, advising Savage that FTB
had classified Defendant as a machinegun. Id.,
17 and Exh. A. Spencer told
Savage that Savage would have to register Defendant again, but as a machinegun.
Id.,
ii
18. Because registration forms must be signed under oath, and because
Short barreled rifles are defined as rifles with barrels less than 16 inches in
length. 18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(8). As will be discussed in more detail later in this
Brief, Claimant has since come to the conclusion that Defendant is not a short
barreled rifle. Plaintiff and Claimant appear to agree on this conclusion.
1:09CV00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
4 I Pa g e
1390
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 5 of 32
Savage said he could not honestly state that Defendant is a machinegun, he

/
refused.
Id.. if 19. After additional back-and-forth discussion between Plaintiff
and Savage, Plaintiff instituted the instant forfeiture proceedings.

Argument
Plaintiff seeks forfeiture of Defendant pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5872, which

provides, in pertinent part that .. Any firearm involved in any violation of the
provisions of this chapter shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture ...." Moreover,
"forfeitures are not favored ... forfeiture statutes are to be strictly construed against
the government." United States v. Eiglzt Hundred Thousand One Hundred Twenty
Seven Dollars and Seve11ty Cents. 2005 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 41287, 18 (D. DC 2005),
citing United States v. Seven !itfiscellaneous Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565, 579 (D.
DC 1980).
Plaintiff claims that Claimant manufactured Defendant as a machinegun and
Claimant understands that there may be a dispute of fact over whether Spencer
responded as Savage testifies he did. If there is such a dispute, it is not material to
this Motion.
4
Claimant should stress that even registration of Defendant as a short-barreled rifle
required some reliance on ATF classifications with which Claimant disagrees.
Claimant believes Defendant should be treated the same as other, similar devices
that ATF has classified as not being firearms at all (GCA or NFA).
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1391
SI Page
RIF
Case 1:09-cv-OO192- GET
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 6 of 32
then failed to "properly" register Defendant, as required by 26 U.S.C. 584l(b).

Thus, in order for Plaintiff to prevail, Defendant must be a machinegun a11d
Claimant must have failed to register Defendant pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 584l(b).
Claimant will show that Defendant is not a machinegun, but that, even if it were, it
was registered and therefore not involved in a violation of Chapter 53.
I. Defendant is Not a Machinegun
"Machinegun" is a term of art under federal law, defined as:
The term 'machinegun" means 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,
any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination
of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a
machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun
can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the
control of a person.
26 U.S.C. 5845(b) [Emphasis supplied]. Thus, a device can be a machinegun if
it meets any of the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A weapon that shoots automatically .. .

A weapon that is designed to shoot automatically ...
A weapon that can be readily restored to shoot automatically ...
The frame or receiver of 1-3 above, a part designed and intended for
use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination
of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled.
1:09-CV-00192-G ET
Historic Arms, LLC
1392
GI Page
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Pag
(b)(5) - Attorney Work Product
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant meets all of 2-4 above5 . Doc. 1, p. 3. Notably,
Plaintiff does not claim that Defendant actually shoots automatically, only that it is
designed to shoot automatically. In(b)(5)fact,
concedes that Defendant does
- AttorneyPlaintiff
Work Product
not shoot at all without modification. Claimant will discuss in tum each of Options
2-4 as they apply to Defendant.
Before addressing each of Options 2-4, however, additional background
facts must be introduced. Plaintiff "tested,, Defendant in an effort to see if Plaintiff
could convert Defendant into a machinegun.
To do so, Plaintiff attache
Defendant an aluminum plate, some plastic ties, and some duct tape.
attempting to make Defendant fire in this configuration, Plaintiffs c

contrivance failed. 2nd Savage
Deel.,~ 20, Exh. A, pp. 6-7.
Stepping up its game, Plaintiff tried once more, but this time replacing
tape and plastic ties with a steel turnbuckle {"tensioning bolt,,).
With
aluminum plate, length of steel chain, and steel turnbuckle installed on Defendant,
Plaintiff was able to cause Defendant to fire automatically in an uncontrolled
As to Option No. 4, Plaintiff actually only claims that Defendant meets the first
part of the test (the frame or receiver part). There is a legal flaw in Plaintiffs
claim that will be discussed below in Part ID.
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1393
71 Pag e
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 8 of 32
fashion. Id.,
if 21.
The firing was "uncontrolled" ecause, with Defe11da11t lacking
a11y ki11d of t,.igger meclza11ism, Plaintiff ha to initiate the firing sequence by

pulling and then releasing the bolt handle. Once initiated, the firing sequence
could not be stopped (there being no trigger to release), [Id.,
if 22] although an FTB
employee claimed he could have stopped the firing sequence by grabbing and
twisting the ammunition belt. Deposition of Max Kingery, p. 110. The same FTB
employee noted that Defendant had to be physically held down onto a surface
while firing it with Plaintifrs pm1s attached, in order to prevent Defendant from
"fly[ing] back and the barrel .. . pointing upward." Id., p. 111.
Plaintiff also demonstrated that Defendant would fire (as designed) by
mounting Defendant on a MAC machinegun.
Id.,
if
23.
With this additional
background, Claimant wi II address each of Items 2-4 from the statutory

machinegun definition.
I.A. Defendant is Not a Weapon
As an initial matter, both Item 2 and 3 from the machinegun definition
require that Defendant be a "weapon." The statute does not contain a definition of
"weapon," and ATF has not supplied one in its regulations.
Webster's New
Collegiate DictionmJ' defines "weapon" as "an instrument of offensive or

1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1394
Bl Page
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 9 of 32
defensive combat: something to fight with." While Defendant, as a fairly hefty

piece of metal, could conceivably be used as a club, Congress could not possibly
have intended such a usage in an entire body of law dealing with firearms. The
"weapon" in question surely must have to be a functional "firearm" (used in the
generic sense), i.e., one that shoots.
As Plaintiff admits, Defendant is incapable of shooting as manufactured:
Q. Is the Defendant as it sits here today in the same condition that it
was when received by FTB?
A. It appears to be with the exception of this slight damage ...
Q. Does that mean in the condition that the Defendant's in right now,
sitting on this table, it's not capable of firing?
A. Correct.
Q. You'd have to do something to it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. There's nothing you could do to it with what's sitting there
right now to make it fire?
A. No, sir.
Kingery Depo., pp. 104-106.
1.B. Defendant is Not Designed to Shoot Automatically
Perhaps the best evidence of what a device is designed to do is what its
inventor says it is designed to do. In the instant case, Savage designed and built
Defendant himself. He described in detail in his deposition the process that he
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1395
9I Pagt:
RIF
Case 1 :09-cv-00192-GET
Document 38-2
used and the intent behind it:
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 1Oof 32
He had a customer who intended to purchase a
quantity of caliber conversion devices for MAC machineguns to use 7 .62X54R

ammunition. Deposition of Lennis Savage, pp. 88-130. Witnesses for Plaintiff
admit that Defendant does indeed convert the caliber of a MAC machinegun to
7.62X54R:
Q. And then when you fire the combination of the Defendant and the
MAC lower, you're firing at 7.62X54R?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you fire the combination of a MAC lower with a MAC
upper, you're firing at the caliber of that particular MAC upper, is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Kingery Depo., p. 140.
While not determinative, it is instructive to examine previous rulings by the
ATF on what the "designed to shoot" portion of the definition means. In ATF Rul.
83-5, ATF says, "The 'designed' definition includes weapons which have not
previously functioned as machineguns but possess specific machinegun design
features which facilitate automatic fire by simple alteration or elimination of
existing component parts." [Emphasis supplied]. Claimant demonstrated that

Defendant cannot fire at all with its existing component parts, and Plaintiff agrees.
2nd Savage Deel.,~ 25; Kingery Depo., pp. 104-106. Only by installing additional
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1396
lOI Page
RIF
Case 1 :09-cv-00192-GET
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 11 of 32
parts was Plaintiff able to make Defendant fire at all.

Given that Defendant does not fire without additional parts, and given that
Claimant specifically designed and manufactured Defendant to be a caliber
conversion device (that is not capable of firing by itself), it cannot be said that
Defendant is designed to shoot, automatically or otherwise. And, again, because

Defendant cannot shoot it is not a weapon at all.
Plaintiff has taken the position that because the Defendant uses an "open
bolt" and "fixed firing pin," Defendant must be a machinegun7 There is no statute
/
" or regulation stating that those features make a device a machinegun. Plaintiffs
own prior decisions indicate that this cannot be the case. See, e.g., ATF Rul 82-8,
holding that semiautomatic versions of the MAC manufactured prior to June 21,
Because Defendant is not a weapon, Claimant also concedes that Defendant does
not fit the definition of a short barreled rifle, either, and therefore should not be
registered at all.
7
Neither "open bolt" nor " fixed firing pin" are legal terms, but they are widely
used in the industry. Firing from an "open bolt" means that the bolt is held back
(open) while the device is at rest but ready to fire. Pulling the trigger generally
releases the bolt, which is under spring tension, allowing the bolt to close
(sometimes putting a round of ammunition in the chamber at the same time) and
commence the firing sequence. Using a "fixed firing pin" means that the firing pin
is not stricken by a hammer, but is "fixed" to the bolt, so that the closing of the bolt
also generally causes the firing pin to engage the primer of the ammunition, thus
firing a round.
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
11 I P a g e
1397
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 12 of 32
1982, and using an open bolt and fixed firing pin, are not machineguns.
The MAC, being one of the most widely held machineguns in private hands,
has generated perhaps the greatest variety of caliber conversion devices.
Savage Deel.,
if
26.
2"d
In particular, Plaintiff has classified the Fleming caliber

conversion device, which converts the caliber of the MAC machinegun to .22, as
not a firearm under either the GCA or the NFA. Id.,
if 27,
Exh. B. The Fleming
mounts on a MAC machinegun similarly to the way Defendant does. Id.,
if 28.
The Fleming also can be caused to shoot automatically using exactly the same
plate, chain, and turnbuckle Plaintiff used to cause Defendant to shoot
automatically (a fact that Claimant demonstrated using Plaintiffs parts). Id.,
ii 29.
The Fleming uses an open bolt and fixed firing pin. Id. , 27, Exh. B.
Plaintiff approved the Fleming conversion device in part beca11se it will 1101
work in a closetl-bolt !1t111111zerfirecl version of a MAC8 . Id. Plaintiff observed in
its letter to Mr. Fleming that the Fleming conversion device uses an open bolt.
Plaintiff concluded in its letter that the Fleming conversion device is 1101 a firearm
under either the GCA or the NFA. Id.
Defendant likewise will not function properly in a closed-bolt hammer-fired

version of the MAC. 211d Savage Deel., ir 30.
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
12 I Pag e
1398
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 13 of 32
It also is helpful to look at the actual factory original "upper" for the MAC
machinegun. 9 The factory upper is not classified by Plaintiff as a firearm at all (b)(5) - Attorney Work Product
under the GCA or the NF A. Id., if3 l. Plaintiff has determined that it is not a
firearm or a machinegun. A MAC upper uses an open bolt and fixed firing pin.
Id.,
iI 32.
If Plaintiffs same plate, chain, and turnbuckle are installed on a MAC

upper, the MAC upper will
fire~
There are multiple examples of ammunition feeding devices that have been
adapted for use on a MAC upper, either to change the caliber or to enhance the
number of rounds that can be carried in the magazine.
In one such example,
Plaintiff classified as not being a firearm under either the GCA or NFA a
modification of a MAC upper to accept a 71-round Suomi drum magazine. Id.,
~35,
Exh. C. The modified MAC upper still uses an open bolt and fixed firing pin.
Id., ~ 36. If Plaintiffs plate, chain, and turnbuckle were installed on the "Suomi"
upper (i.e., a MAC upper with the Suomi drum magazine attached), the upper
would behave identically with Defendant - an entire 71-round magazine would fire
The " upper" is the part of the MAC machinegun that Defendant replaces. That is,
to install Defendant on a MAC. the factory upper is removed from the MAC and
replaced with Defendant. Likewise, other caliber conversion devices replace the
upper.
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1399
13I Page
RIP
automatically.
Id.,~
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 14 of 32
37.
In another example, involving one of Claimant's products designed as a

MAC caliber conversion device, Plaintiff classified as not a firearm under either
the GCO or the NFA a Calico magazine mounted onto a MAC machinegun upper.
Id. , if 38, Exh. D. The modified upper (with Calico magazine attached) still uses
an open bolt and a fixed firing pin, yet it is not a machinegun according to
Plaintiff. Id..
ii 39.
If Plaintiffs plate, chain, and turnbuckle were installed on a
Calico/MAC upper, the MAC upper would fire automatically until the ammunition
was exhausted. Id.,
ii 40.
What is plain from these examples is that Plaintiff has succeeded in building
a device out of a chain, turnbuckle and plate that will cause any MAC upper
(including caliber conversion units) to shoot automatically. What is not at all plain
is why Plaintiff believes that only one such upper or caliber conversion unit,
Defendant, is a machinegun when every other essentially identical device is not a
firearm at all, much less a machinegun.
1C. Defendant Cannot Be Restored to Shoot Automatically
A fil'earm can be ' readily restored' to shoot automatically if the
firearm previously could shoot automatically, but cannot shoot
automatically in its present condition.
1:09-CV 00192-G ET
Historic Arms, LLC
1400
14
I Page
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 15 of 32
United States v. M-K Specialties Model M-14Maclzinegun Serial Number 1447797,

424 F.Supp.2d 862, 869 (N.D. W. Va. 2006), citing ATF Rul. 83-5 [Emphasis
supplied].
In the instant case, Defendant never has been fired, except when
modified by the ATF by the addition of the chain, turnbuckle and plate or when
installed on a MAC machinegun (as designed).
Moreover, nothing in the Complaint alleges that Defendant ever did shoot
automatically (other than the bare assertion that Defendant is readily restorable).
Because Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant ever shot automatically (before
Plaintiff caused Defendant to shoot automatically), Plaintiff cannot show that
Defendant is readily restorable to shoot automatically.
ID. Defendant Does Not Contain the Frame or Receiver of a Machinegun CWith or
Without Parts Needed to Make a Machinegun
Plaintiffs last claim that Defendant is a machinegun is that Defendant is the
frame or receiver of a machinegun . As noted above in FN 5, Plaintiffs claim is
legally flawed. As a reminder, the fourth option by which a device can be a
machinegun is:
The tenn shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon,
any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1401
15
I Page
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 16 of 32

machinegun, am/ any combination of parts from which a machinegun
can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the
control of a person.
26 U.S.C. 5845(b) [Emphasis supplied]. It is clear from Plaintiffs claim that
Plaintiff interprets this fourth option in the disjunctive (i.e., as fourth, fifth, and
sixth options instead of a single fourth option). Plaintiff apparently believes that
any 011e of the following is a machinegun:
1. The frame or receiver of a machinegun
2. Any part or combination of parts designed and intended for use m
converting a weapon into a machinegun
3. Any combination of part from which a machinegun can be assembled
The problem with Plaintiffs belief is that that is not what the statute says.
The statute does not use the disjunctive or rather than the conjunctive a11d when
concluding the list. Because the conjunction was used, however, all three must be
present in order for there to be a machinegun:
Since the Congress saw fit to phrase the second sentence of section
5845(b) in the conjunctive and not in the disjunctive, a reasonable
reading of the statute would require the conclusion that t/le term
"frame or receiver" is uot contemplated i11 isolatio11 but together
with the possessiou of additional parts from wliicll the mac/1i11eg1m
could be assembled.
United States v. Seven Miscellaneous Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565, 575 (D. DC
1980) [Emphasis supplied].
1:09-CV-OO19 2GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1402
16
I Page
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 17 of 32
Congress changed the definition of a machinegun slightly since Seven

Miscellaneous Firearms (See Pub. L. 99-308), but Congress did not change the
"and" to "or."
Congress is presumed to act with knowledge of prior court
decisions. Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 216 (2005). It can be fairly
inferred, therefore, that Congress did not think it necessary to correct any
perceived misinterpretations of its intentions because Congress really did intend
for the list to be conjunctive.
Because Plaintiff only claims that Defendant is a frame or receiver of a
machinegun, but does not also claim that Defendant includes parts designed or
intended to convert a weapon into a machinegun and a combination of parts from
which a machinegun can be assembled, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for
which relief may be granted.HI
Even if this Court disregards Whitfield and considers Plaintiffs "isolated
frame or receiver" claim, that claim still fails. Starting with the design objective of
building a MAC machincgun caliber conversion device, Savage determined that it
10
Of course, just altering its claim to include the part(s) provisions of the definition
would not salvage Plaintiff's claim, as there is no evidence that such conversion
parts are present on Defendant. Only when combined with Plaintiffs chain,
turnbuckle, and plate can a machinegun be constructed (and a crude one at that).
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
17 I Page
1403
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 18 of 32
would be expeditious to use component parts of other guns that already are
configured for the new caliber. Id.,
if
41. To that end, Savage began with the
receiver for a VLTOR semi-automatic rifle that fires 7.62X54R ammunition. Id.,
42.
A photograph of the components that will be discussed in this section is
reproduced here for ease of reference:
11onoM fLOOR OP TIIE
R1:n :1vr.R RF.MOVED AND WITI-l
OVERSIZED GUIDE RAii. TO

PREVENT INSTAl.Lt\110 N or
IT. 1111: "BLOCKING BAR
MACHINE Gl ' N llLll.T AND
NO BOLT"BLOCKING BAR
CARRIER -
PRESENT IN THE RECEIVER TO

PREVENT MACHINE GUN
BOLT INSTALLATION
---
~..............~
BLOGKING Bi\R" THAT
PREVENTS IN~IALLt\TI O~ ()f'

MACHINf. Gt IN llOLT C.\RRILR
\'I IL'IR
~tVERI:D
!\J ,\ \{;\ l rh) RJ'l l.IVl:R REMNANT
Id., if 58, Exh. E.

1:09-CV-00192-GET
UZI
CHANNEURECEIVER
A VLTOR semiautomatic receiver differs in two distinct ways

Historic Arms, LLC
1404
18
I Page
RIF
Document 38-2
from the fully automatic PKM receiver.
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 19 of 32
First, there is a "machinegun bolt
blocking bar" attached to the floor of the VLTOR receiver. The purpose of the bar
is to prevent the use of a machinegun bolt carrier in the VLTOR rifle. It should be
noted that both the VL TOR rifle and the PKM machinegun use a machinegun bolt
carrier, but the bolt carrier is modified in the VLTOR rifle (with Plaintiffs
blessing).
One such modification is the removal of the sear surface on the
semiautomatic version.
The sear surface catches on the blocking bar, thus
preventing continuous operation (and fully automatic firing). Id.,
iJ 45.
The other feature of the VLTOR receiver is that one of the two rails (there is
one on each side of the receiver) on which the bolt carrier rides is oversized
compared to the other.
A stock machinegun bolt carrier has identically-sized rail
slots that mate with the machinegun receiver rails. The machinegun bolt carrier
will not fit into the rails of the VLTOR rifle. The semi-automatic bolt carrier,
which has a modi tied rai I on one side to mate with the VLTOR receiver, will fit
into the semi-automatic receiver. Thus, in order to convert a VLTOR receiver into
a fully automatic PKM receiver, one must defeat both the blocking bar and the
widened side rail. Id..
i 46.
Savage only used a severed remnant of the VLTOR receiver for its
1:09-CV-OO19 2-G ET
Historic Arms, LLC
1405
19 J Page
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 20 of 32
ammunition feeding capabilities. Id., ~ 47. The floor of the receiver would have
interfered with the ability to attach the finished caliber conversion device onto a
MAC machinegun. For this reason, Savage used a plasma cutter to remove most
of the floor of the VLTOR rifle receiver, thus destroying the receiver and making it
no longer useful as a receiver at atl (in either a semiautomatic VLTOR rifle or fully
automatic PKM). Id..
49. In the process of removing most of the floor of the
VLTOR receiver, the blocking bar discussed earlier was removed (because it is
attached to the floor of the complete receiver and the floor was mostly removed).
Significantly, however, the side rails of the VLTOR receiver were not disturbed even after Savage cut away the floor of the receiver, it still was impossible for a
machinegun bolt carrier to fit into the severed remnant of the VLTOR receiver.
Id.,~
50.
It was precisely at this stage of the manufacturing process - when Savage

cut away the floor of the VL TOR receiver - that Plaintiff claims Savage created a
PKM machinegun receiver out of the VLTOR receiver.
Because Defendant
contains the severed remnant of the VLTOR receiver, Plaintiff claims that
Defendant contains the frame or receiver of a machinegun.
The problem with Plaintiffs claim, of course, is that at best Savage only
1:09-CV-OO19 2-G ET
Historic Arms, LLC
1406
20 I P age
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 21of32
defeated one of two independent features that differentiate the semi-automatic

VLTOR from the fully automatic PKM.
Even if the severed remnant of the
VLTOR semiautomatic receiver were still functional as a receiver, which it is

not 11 , the guide rail feature was intact, making it impossible to put a machinegun
bolt carrier into the severed remnant.
Moreover, the severed remnant of the original VLTOR receiver was not left
in a standalone state. After cutting the floor out of the receiver, Savage attached
the remnant to many other parts, including a portion of a MAC machinegun upper
(which is a part that the ATF does not consider to be a machinegun). Id.,
if 51.
By
the time Savage finished welding many other parts onto the severed VLTOR
semiautomatic receiver remnant, the severed remnant no longer was physically
capable of attaching to either a VLTOR rifle or to a PKM machinegun. In fact, by
design, Defendant can only be attached to one firearm type of which Claimant is
aware: a MAC machinegun. Id.,
52.
The severed remnant of the VL TOR receiver was not usable as a receiver at all at
that point, because critical parts would fa]] out, other critical parts cannot be
attached, so even if the side rails had been modified to accommodate a machine
bolt carrier, the bolt catTier would not stay in and the severed remnant would not
have been a machinegun. Id.. ii 53 .
11
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1407
21
I Page
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 22 of 32
Because the severed remnant of the VLTOR receiver used in Defendant still
retains the semi-automatic side rail, and because the severed remnant has been
welded with other parts, making it no longer possible to attach to any kind of
firearm other than a MAC machinegun, it cannot be said that Defendant contains
the receiver of a PKM machinegun.
Plaintiffs position is reached primarily through its "once a machinegun
always a machinegun" theory. The basic tenet of that theory is that once a device
is properly classifiable as a machinegun, that classification remains with the device
no matter what modifications may be made (short of destruction).
Plaintiff
admitted as much when FTB Assistant Chief Richard Vasquez testified that
Defendant was beyond "rehabilitation" and had to be destroyed to make it no
longer a machinegun. Deposition of Richard Vaszquez, pp. 86-87.
Plaintiffs theory has been thoroughly discredited. In F.J. Vollmer Company
v. Magaw, 102 F.3d 591, 597 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the Court found that Plaintiffs
theory is "incredible." The Court also found that a semiautomatic receiver, once
made into a machinegun receiver and then later converted back into a
semiautomatic receiver was no longer a machinegun.
Comparing Vol/111er to the instant case, even assuming arguendo that
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1408
22
I Prig e
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 23 of 32
Claimant temporari1y converted the severed remnant of the VLTOR receiver into a
PKM machinegun receiver during the manufacturing process, the finished product
(i.. e., Defendant) pemianently incorporated that severed receiver remnant into a
new configuration where it cannot shoot at all and is only usable as an
(unregulated) non-firearm upper for a MAC machinegun.
Plaintiff also applies its own conclusions arbitrarily and capriciousl

Plaintiffs fact and expert witness, FTB Firearms Examination Officer Ma
Kingery deposed that a VLTOR semiautomatic rifle receiver, cut essentially
identically as the one Claimant used in constructing Defendant, is a machinegun.
Kingery Depo., pp. 149-150. He based this conclusion on the fact that the floor
had been cut out of the receiver so that the receiver no longer contained the
blocking bar. Id. The severed receiver remnant did, however, contain the widened
side rail and would not accept a machinegun bolt carrier nor function at all as a
firearm. Id., p. 152.
Kingery also (incorrectly) identified a standard semiautomatic UZI channel 12
(a GCA firearm receiver) as a machinegun, because the receiver did not have a
12
An UZI channel is the receiver of the famous Israeli firearm. UZis are made in
both semiautomatic and fully automatic versions. 2"d Savage Deel.,~ 54.
1:09-CV00192GET
Historic Arms, LLC
23 I P a g e
1409
RIP
...
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 24 of 32
blocking bar. Id., p. 168. The problem with Kingery's determination is that ATF
does not classify UZI channels as machineguns.
Id., if 55. They are readily

purchasable throughout the country for well under $100. Id.,
if 56.
A blocking bar
(which also is readily available throughout the country) must be installed in the
channel when manufacturing a fully functional semiautomatic UZI, but the channel
without a blocking bar is just a semiautomatic receiver (according to ATF
classifications). Id.,
if 57.
It is completely arbitrary for Plaintiff to classify a severed remnant of a

VLTOR semiautomatic receiver with no blocking bar (but with an oversized side
rail) as a machinegun when it also classifies an UZI receiver with no blocking bar
as not being a machinegun. The fact is that all VLTOR semiautomatic rifle and
UZI receivers, at some point in their manufacturing process, do not yet possess a
blocking bar (which is a part that must be installed into the receiver). Id.,
if 59.
The ATF does not take the position that these receivers are machineguns at an
early stage in the manufacturing process and then not machineguns at the
conclusion of this process (when blocking bars have been installed). Id. , if 60.
The inescapable conclusion is that Plaintiff determined that Defendant is a
machinegun because Plaintiff does not want Claimant to manufacture more devices
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arm s, LLC
1410
24
I Page
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 25 of 32
like Defendant, not because Plaintiffs classification is the least bit consistent with
Plaintiff's treatment of similar devices.
Claimant has refuted each of the three assertions Plaintiff has made that
Defendant is a machinegun.
II. Defendant Was Not lnYolved in a Violation of Federal Law
Even if the Court somehow concludes that
D~fendant
is a machinegun, the
Court also must find that Defendant was involved in a violation of federal firearms
laws in order for Plaintiff to succeed in forfeiting Defendant. No such violation
has occurred.
Before addressing the violation alleged by Plaintiff, it is important to note (b)(5) - Attorney Work Product
the application of the forfeiture statute:
The basis or justification for the imposition of a forfeiture is that the
articles sought to be forfeited are guilty or are somehow involved in
the commission of a crime. Generally, forfeiture statutes are strictly
construed against forfeiture and in favor of the person whose property
rights are affected. Every element justifying the forfeiture must be
clearly shown and the rules of procedure are to be construed so as to
narrowly circumscribe the remedy of forfeiture. Unless the property
is used in violation of the law, there is no justification for the
forfeiture.
United States v. Seven Miscellaneous Firearms, 503 F.Supp. 565, 579 (D. DC
1980).
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1411
25
I Page
RIP
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 26 of 32
Plaintiff contends that Defendant's crime is not being "properly" registered.

Plaintiff admits that Defendant is registered, and Plaintiff admits that Plaintiff
accepted Claimant's registration of Defendant. 13 For a SOT such as Claimant, a
NFA firearm is registered by:

Registration of firearms. (c) How registered. Each manufacturer
shall notify the Secretary of the manufacture of a firearm in such
manner as may by regulations be prescribed and suclt 11otijication
sltall effect tile registmtiou of tile firearm required by tlris section.
26 U.S.C. 5841 (c). [Emphasis supplied]. The applicable regulation promul
by Plaintiff states:
Each manufacturer qualified under this part shall file with the Director
an accurate notice on Form 2 (Firearms), Notice of Firearms
Manufactured or Imported, executed under the penalties of perjury, to
show his manufacture of firearms.... Receipt of the notice, Form 2
(Firearms) by the Director shall effectuate the registration of the
firearms listed on that notice.
27 C.F.R. 479. l 03. Claimant complied with this regulation by filing a Form 2 on
April 21, 2008 with the information requested, and Plaintiff received the Form 2
13
Plaintiff also contends that, if Defendant were returned to Claimant, Claimant's

possession of Defendant would constitute a violation. That contention need not be
addressed, however, because there is no provision in the law for forfeiture of
property based on a theoretical future violation of the law. If Defendant has not
been involved in a violation that already has occurred, there can be no forfeiture.
For this reason, only the registration of Defendant is at issue in this case.
Historic Arms, LLC
26 I Page
1412
RIP
Case 1 :09-cv-00192-GET
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 27 of 32
the same day (Claimant sent it by fax). Id.,, 61, Exh. F. The only aspect of the
Form 2 about which Plaintiff has complained is that the Form 2 Claimant filed lists
the "type of firearm" as "SBR," for "short-barreled rifle." Plaintiff accepted the
Form 2 and returne9 it as accepted to Claimant, despite the fact that Plaintiff had
Defendant in its possession and knew in advance what the general design of
Defendant was. Id.
Not until June 10, 2008 did Plaintiff decide that Defendant is a machinegun
and notify Claimant of its decision. At that time, Plaintiff insisted that Claimant
amend Claimant's registration to show that Defendant is a machinegun and not a
short-barreled rifle.
As noted in the regulation above, however, a registration
(Form 2) must be filed under penalty of perjury. Savage told Plaintiff he could not
in good conscious sign a new Form 2 saying Defendant is a machinegun when he
did not believe it to be one.
Mr. Spencer, the FTB Chief suggested in internal emails that Plaintiff
modify Defendant's registration unilaterally to reflect the fact that it is
machinegun. Deposition of John Spencer, p. 24. Mr. Spencer deposed that he was
told by counsel that his suggestion could not be implemented because Form 2s are
submitted under oath and the government could not change someone's sworn
1:09CV00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1413
27 I P age
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 28 of 32
statement. Id., pp. 24-26.

We thus have a paradox that Claimant registered Defendant.
accepted the registration.
Plaintiff
Plaintiff later determined that Defendant is a
machinegun and not a short barreled rifle.
Claimant disagrees with the
determination that Defendant is a machinegun (though Claimant also agrees that

Defendant is not a short barreled rifle - therefore Defendant need not be registered
at all 14 ).
Plaintiff nevertheless wants Claimant to swear that Defendant is a
machinegun when Mr. Savage believes that to be a false statement. Plaintiff is

unwilling to change its own records to reflect that Defendant is a machinegun
because Mr. Savage swore under oath that it is a short barreled rifle. For these
reasons, Plaintiff insists that Defendant has been involved in a violation of federal
law, to wit: Defendant was not "properly" registered. Claimant can find no cases
addressing the issue of a NFA firearm that is registered, but not "properly"
registered.
.,
14
On July 7, 2009, Plaintiff issued an "Open Letter to All Federal Firearms

Licensees," advising them that devices can be GCA or NFA firearms yet not be
rifles, shotgun, or handguns. Until this Open Letter was issued, it was not clear
that Plaintiff took that position. Thus, because Claimant intended for Defendant to
be mounted in a MAC machinegun that is fired from the shoulder, Claimant
1:09CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1414
28 I P age
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 29 of 32
While there is a disagreement between the parties on the correct

classification of Defendant, this disagreement does not create a violation of federal
criminal law that requires forfeiture of Defendant. Moreover, Claimant asserts that
-------
it should be given the opportunity to register Defendant as a machinegun if the

--
Court determines that Defendant is . a machinegun. It is not at all clear that a

.
disagreement between Plaintiff and an entity regulated by Plaintiff should result in

forfeiture of the entity's property.
Of course, Defendant does not have to be registered if it is not an NF A
firearm. GCA firearms and devices that are not firearms at all have no registration
requirement. Unless this Court finds both that Defendant is a machinegun and that
Defendant was not registered as required, there can be no forfeiture.
III. Claimant is the True Owner of Defendant

Claimant designed and manufactured Defendant usmg Claimant's parts,
tools, and employees.
No other person or entity has a claim or interest in
Defendant, and Plaintiff does not dispute that Claimant is Defendant's true owner.
2nd Savage Deel., 62. There being no other claimants to D~fendant, Claimant is
assumed Plaintiff would classify Defendant as a rifle. It is now clear that Plaintiff
does not. 2"d Savage Deel., if63, Exh. G.
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
29 I P age
1415
RIF

Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 30 of 32
entitled to a return of Defendant.

Conclusion
Claimant has shown that Defendant is not a machinegun, that Plaintiffs

classification of Defendant as a machinegun is erroneous, arbitrary and capricious,
and that Defendant has not been involved in a violation of the law. For these
reasons, Claimant's Motion should be granted and Defendant should be returned to
Claimant as soon as possible.
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
678-362-7650
john.monroe l @earthlink.net

N.C. Bar 13151
Telephone: (704) 376-6455
Facsimile: (704) 332 5010
hmwhitesi des@whitesides law .com
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1416
30 I Pa Ee
RIF
.'
.
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 31 of 32
Local Rule 7.lD Certification

The undersigned counsel certifies that the foregoing was prepared using
Times New Roman 14 point, a font and point selection approved in LR 5.IB.
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1417
31 l Page
RIF
Document 38-2
Filed 10/28/2009
Page 32 of 32
I certify that on October 28, 2009, I filed the foregoing using the ECF system, which
automatically will email a coy to:
Mr. G. Jeffrey Viscomi, Esq.
Jeffrcy.viscomiuLusdoj.gov
Mr. Harry R. Foster, Esq.

Hairy.foster@alf.gO\
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
1:09CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1418
32 I P age
RIF
.I
Case 8:08-cv-00988-RAL-TGW
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 1 of 20

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIAM AKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO: 8:08-cv-988-T-26TGW

Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment, which is accompanied by the administrative
record of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF" or
"BATFE") (Dkt. 19) and Plaintiffs Response in Opposition, which is accompanied by a
Statement of Disputed Facts and exhibits (Dkt. 25). Defendant has also filed a Reply to
the Response. (Dkt. 28.)
Summarv Judement Standard
The parties have submitted many exhibits for the Court's consideration in these
proceedings and, thus, Defendant's instant Motion will be treated as a motion for
summary judgment. See Poole v. Rich, 2008 WL 185527, at *2 (1 lth Cir. 2008)
(reaffirming the general rule that whenever a judge considers matters outside the
pleadings in a 12(b)(6) motion, that motion is converted to Rule 56 motion for summary
judgment). Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material
1419
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 2 of 20
fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. See
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (citation
omitted). On a motion for summary judgment, the court must review the record, and all
its inferences, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See United States v.
Diebold. Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). Having done so, the Court finds that
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be granted. Defendant's
memoranda are thorough and well-reasoned and, therefore, portions of them will be
incorporated herein.
Case Background
The Gun Control Act ("GCA") prohibits any person from "possess[ing] a
machinegun" manufactured after May 19, 1986, subject to a limited exception for law
enforcement agencies. 18 U.S.C. 922(0). Congress drew upon the definition of
"machinegun" as found in the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), Internal Revenue Code of
1954, 26 U.S.C. 5845, which defines the term as follows:
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, any part designed and intended solely and
exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from
which a machinegun can be assembled, if such parts are in the possession or
1420
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 3 of 20
See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23), 922(b); 26 U.S.C. 5845; see also 27 C.F.R. 478.11;
479.11. Manufacturers of machineguns are required to register in accordance with 26
U.S.C. 5822 and may only manufacture them for the use of a Federal or state
department or agency. See 18 U .S.C. 922( o). Congress has delegated the authority to
regulate under the NFA to ATF. See 27 C.F.R. 479; U.S. v. One Sentinel Anus Striker12 Shotgun Serial No. 001725, 416 F .3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing delegation of
authority to ATF).
In 1998, Plaintiff developed an "apparatus for accelerating the cyclic firing rate of
a semi-automatic firearm," and applied for a patent from the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. (Dkt. 12, Ex A.) On August 15, 2000, Plaintiff received Patent No.
6,101,918 for his device, which he subsequently named the "Akins Accelerator." (Id. at
Ex. B; Dkt. 12, ii 7.) Plaintiff wrote to the Firearms Technology Branch ("FTB") of ATF
on March 31, 2002, enclosing a copy of his patent abstract, to inquire as to whether the
device would be classified as a machinegun. (Dkt. 12, Ex. B.)
On July 28, 2003, FTB asked that Plaintiff submit a sample of the device and on
August 21, 2003, Thomas Bowers ("Bowers"), Plaintiffs business associate, submitted a
prototype to FTB. (Dkt.
I,~
15.) FTB examined the Akins Accelerator prototype,
installed it in an SKS-type rifle, and test-fired it. (Dkt. 12, Ex. E.) On the second testfiring, the prototype broke. (Id.) Notwithstanding, FTB determined that "the submitted
stock assembly does not constitute a machinegun . .. [nor] a part or parts designed and
intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun." (Id.) FTB informed Mr.
1421
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 4 of 20
Bowers of its conclusion in a November 17, 2003 letter, noting that the "weapon did not
fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger."
mu
On January 21, 2004, Bowers submitted a second letter, wherein he expressed

"confusion" over the meaning of the November 17, 2003 letter and asked FTB to "clearly
state[]" its opinion on the "application of the principle of operation" of the Akins
Accelerator, not just on the physical prototype itself. (Dkt. 12, Ex. F.) FTB replied to
Mr. Bowers' letter on January 29, 2004, describing the device's "proposed theory of
operation" as "the application of the movement of the counter recoiling rifle to initiate a
rapid succession of semiautomatic fire." (Dkt. 12, Ex. G.) The letter then stated that the
"classification of the stock assembly was rendered despite the breakage of the prototype,"
noting that "[t]he theory of operation was clear even though the rifle/stock assembly did
not perform as intended." (Id.) The letter emphasized, however, that its conclusions were
"valid provided that when the stock is assembled with an otherwise unmodified SKS
semiautomatic rifle, the rifle does not discharge more than one shot by a single function
of the trigger." (Id.) Based on FTB's classification that the Akins Accelerator was not a
machinegun, Plaintiff began mass production and distribution of the devices through
Plaintifrs predecessor in interest, Akins Group, Inc.
On August 18, 2006, a website that Plaintiff was using to sell the Akins
Accelerator came to the attention of ATF. (Dkt. 19, R. 25.) 1 The website advertised the
Citations to pages in the administrative record (Dkt. 19) are signaled throughout this
Order with "R."
1422
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 5 of 20
device as "Evaluated by FTB/USDOJ/BATFE" and quoted from FTB's letters and the
NFA. (R. 25-26.) Shortly thereafter, an Akins Accelerator customer wrote the FTB and
requested "a written determination" of whether the device, "assembled with a standard
Ruger 10/22 semiautomatic carbine as described by the manufacturer," would constitute a
machinegun within the NFA.2 (R. at 27-28.) The letter expressed concern that the earlier
letters to Mr. Bowers did not "specifically include the use of the device with a standard
Ruger 10/22 semiautomatic carbine." {Id.) Around the same time, FTB received requests
to evaluate other devices designed to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic
firearm, including one to be used in conjunction with an AK.-47 type semiautomatic rifle.
(R. 50-52.)
On September 22, 2006, ATF opened an investigation into the then being sold
Akins Accelerator. (Id. at R. 54.) ATF obtained a retail-modi;! device on October 6,
2006, and forwarded it to FTB on October 11, 2006. (Id.) Following a test-firing of the
retail-model device, FTB wrote to Bowers on November 22, 2006, and advised him that it
had tested the device with a Ruger 10/22 rifle and "demonstrated that a single pull of the
trigger initiates an automatic firing cycle that continues until the finger is released, the
weapon malfunctions, or the ammunition supply is exhausted." (Diet. 12, Ex. H.) The
letter also noted that "[t]he Akins device assembled with a Ruger 10/22 is advertised to
fire approximately 650 rounds per minute," and concluded that the device must be
~ 26 U.S.C. 5845(a) (defining "firearm").
1423
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 6 of 20
classified as a machinegun. (Id.) FTB stated that its prior letters "are hereby overruled"
and advised Plaintiff to either register its Akins Accelerators on hand as machineguns in
accordance with 26 U.S.C. 5822 or surrender them. (Id.)
Then, on December 13, 2006, ATF issued a new policy statement, ATF Ruling
2006-2, out of concern for the public safety implications of other, similar devices. (Dkt.
12, Ex. I.) In that statement, ATF explained that "conversion parts that, when installed in
a semiautomatic rifle, result in a weapon that shoots more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single pull of the trigger, are a machinegun as defined in the National
Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act." (Id.) In addition, ATF provided a description of
the Akins Accelerator, and held that such a device would be classified as a machinegun.
(Id.)
On January 19, 2007, ATF required Plaintiff to remove recoil springs from his
personal Akins Accelerators and surrender them. (Dkt. 1, ii 35.) On February 6, 2007,
Plaintiff, through counsel, requested that FTB reconsider its classification of the Akins
Accelerator as a machinegun. (Dkt. 12, Ex. J.) The request for reconsideration asserted
that... "(i]f . . . the trigger finger remains in contact with the trigger, only one shot can
result until the trigger is released and then pressed again." (Id.) It also observed that a
number of other devices have not been classified as machineguns, including devices that
fire two or three shots with a single pull of the trigger. (Id.; R. 132.) The request for
reconsideration emphasized that the agency's original classification of the Akins
Accelerator was "consistent" with "long-standing agency interpretations." (Id.; R. 135.)
6
1424
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 7 of 20
In conjunction with his request that ATF reconsider Ruling 2006-2, Plaintiff requested the
opportunity "to present [his] case orally" to ATF. (R. 147.) On September 24, 2007,
ATF issued a letter upholding that the machine gun classification without a hearing.
(Dkt. 12, Ex. K.)
On February 18, 2008, Akins Group, Inc., assigned all rights and interests in
claims it may have against the Government to Plaintiff. (Dkt. 1, 137.) On March 6,
2008, Akins filed a lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims, requesting compensation
under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief reversing ATF's classification of the Akins Accelerator. See Akins v. United
States, No. 08-136C (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2008) (No. 1). On May 2, 2008, the United States
moved to dismiss the case, arguing with respect to Akins' declaratory and injunctive
relief claims that the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to: ( 1) hear Plaintiffs
due process claim; (2) conduct Administrative Procedures Act (APA") review of ATFs
ruling; (3) declare 18 U.S.C. 922(0) unconstitutional; or (4) issue the requested
declaratory and injunctive relief. See Akins v. United States, No. 08-136C (Ct. Fed. Cl.
2008) (No. 5). In response, Akins withdrew those claims. See Akins v. United States,
No. 08-136C (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2008) (No. 6).
Plain ti ff filed the instant action on May 21, 2008, claiming that ATF/FTB 's actions
were arbitrary and capricious and a violation of due process. (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff seeks
relief in the form of: ( 1) a declaration that the Akins Accelerator is not a machinegun; (2)
an injunction prohibiting Defendant from treating the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun
7
1425
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 8 of 20
for any purpose; (3) an alternative declaratory ruling that 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) is
unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to Plaintiff; (4) alternative injunctive
relief prohibiting Defendant from applying 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) so as to treat the Akins
Accelerator as a machinegun; and (5) costs and attorney's fees. (Dkt. 1.)
On July 24, 2008, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed Akins' remaining claims,
holding that Akins' takings claims were "barred under the police power doctrine," and
further holding that Akins "voluntarily entered an area subject to pervasive federal
regulation, in which he could not have an "expectation interest . . . protected by the Fifth
Amendment. See Akins v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 619, 622-24 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2008).
Standard of Review
This case is a challenge to ATF's interpretation of26 U.S.C. 5845 and its
application to the Akins Accelerator. Such final agency actions may be challenged as
"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law"
under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). See 5 U.S.C. 706(2); 5 U.S.C. 704.
If that challenge is successful, the court may "hold [the action] unlawful and set aside
agency action, findings, and conclusions." Sierra Club v. Flowers, 526 F.3d 1353, 1360
(11th Cir. 2008). "This standard of review is highly deferential, and presumes the
validity of the agency action." Florida Manufactured Housing Ass'n. Inc. v. Cisneros, 53
F.3d 1565, 1572 (11th Cir. 1995); see also Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 526 F.3d 1353,
1360 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that "this standard is exceedingly deferential").
1426
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 9 of 20
It is well established that this Court should confine its review to the administrative
record. See Garcia v. United States, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22704, at *18 (S.D. Fla. May
8, 2002) (holding that "[i]n an AP A case, judicial review is based on an administrative
record provided by the defendant agency to the Court"); see generally Florida Power &
Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743 (1985) (holding that "[t]he focal point for judicial
review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record
made initially in the reviewing court"). A complete administrative record does not
include privileged materials, such as documents that fall within the deliberative process
privilege, attorney-client privilege, and work product privilege. In this case, Defendant
has provided the Court with the complete administrative record and Plaintiff with a
privilege log explaining the reasons for any redactions.
Ultimately, the reviewing court should only "ensure that the agency came to a
rational conclusion, not [] conduct its own investigation and substitute its own judgment
for the administrative agency's decision." Van Antwerp, 526 F.3d at 1360. Although the
agency must have "examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory
explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the
choice made," the Court must "uphold a decision ofless than ideal clarity if the agency's
path may reasonably be di scerned." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
1427
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 10 of 20
Discussion
ATF concluded that the Akins Accelerator is a machinegun based on its testfiring
of a retail-model Akins Accelerator, installed in a Ruger 10/22 rifle, in accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions. Federal law defines a "machinegun" as any weapon
which shoots "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger." 28 U.S.C. 5845(b). The definition includes "any part designed
and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended. for
use in converting a weapon into a machinegun." Id. (emphasis added). In the test-firing,
FTB detennined that "the person firing has to make one initial conscious effort to pull the
trigger ... [and] once the triggering cycle is initiated, the fireann continues to fire without
interruption until a second, conscious releasing of the trigger stops the firing sequence."
(R. 157). Thus, the Akins Accelerator fires "more than one shot, automatically, without
manual reloading, and without any additional conscious action to manipulate the trigger,"
as set out in 28 U.S.C. 5845(b).
Plaintiff does not dispute that the purpose of the Akins Accelerator is to make it
possible for the shooter to act once and cause the rifle to fire repeatedly until its
ammunition is exhausted or until the shooter takes an action to remove hid finger from the
device. (See Dkt. 25, Statement of Disputed
Facts,~~
3-8.) In fact, Plaintiff
acknowledged that the Akins Accelerator "bounces" the rifle back and forth, repeatedly
causing the weapon to discharge by "push[ing] it into the finger." (Id.
at~~
6-7.) As
10
1428
RIF
Case B:OB-cv-00988-RAL-TGW
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 11 of 20
Defendant asserts, the reasonableness of ATF's common-sense determination is

supported by judicial precedent, legislative history, and the need to protect public safety.
The Supreme Court has adopted the view that "single function of the trigger" is
synonymous with "single pull of the trigger." See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600,
603 n. l ( 1994). In Staples, the Supreme Court interpreted the NFA definition and
concluded that "any fully automatic weapon is a 'fireann' within the meaning of the Act."
Id. at 602. As the Court further explained, an automatic weapon is one "that fires
repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the
weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition
is exhausted. Such weapons are 'machineguns' within the meaning of the Act." Id. at
603, n.1. In contrast, the Court "use[d] the tenn 'semiautomatic' to designate a weapon
that fires only one shot with each pull of the trigger ... " Id. Similarly, in analyzing a
weapon that "required only one action-pulling [a user-installed] switch . .. to fire multiple
shots," the Fifth Circuit concluded that a "single function of the trigger" should be
interpreted as a single action -- the trigger pull. United States v. Camp, 343 F.3d 743, 745
(5th Cir. 2003).
The legislative history of the NF A also confinns that A TF, like the above-cited
courts, reasonably reads the phrase "single function of the trigger" as encompassing any
"single pull of the trigger." In testimony leading up to the passage of the NF A, the then
president of the National Rifle Association equated the phrase "single function of the
trigger" with a "single pull of the trigger." As he explained:
11
1429
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 12 of 20
The distinguishing feature of a machine gun is that by a single pull of the

trigger the gun continues to fire as long as there is any ammunition in the
belt or in the magazine. Other guns require a separate pull of the trigger for
every shot fired, and such guns are not properly designated as machine
guns. A gun, however, which is capable of firing more than one shot by a
single pull of the trigger, a single function of the trigger, is properly
regarded, in my opinion, as a machine gun.
National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. Rep.
No. 9066, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 40 (1934).
Furthermore, ATF possesses the authority "to reconsider and rectify errors even
though the applicable statute and regulations do not expressly provide for such
reconsideration." Gun South Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d 858, 862 (11th Cir. 1989). At the
same time, however, when "[a]n agency's view of what is in the public interest" changes,
it "must supply a reasoned analysis ... ."). Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 57 (1983). Without such a reasoned analysis, "[s]udden and
unexplained change, or change that does not take account of legitimate reliance on prior
interpretation, may be arbitrary, capricious [or] an abuse of discretion." Smiley v.
Citibank (South Dakota). N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 742 (1996).
In this case, ATF presents such a "reasoned analysis," demonstrating that its new
interpretation of the phrase "single function of the trigger" is necessary to protect the
public from dangerous firearms. In Ruling 2006-2, ATF explains that the motivation for
its reconsideration of the earlier letters to Plaintiff came from requests by "several
members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are exclusively designed to
increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm." (Dkt. 12, Ex. I.) The Ruling then
12
1430
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 13 of 20
sets forth a mechanical description of how such a device works (using the Akins
Accelerator as an example) and reaches the important conclusion: "a single pull of the
trigger initiates an automatic firing cycle." (Id.) Next, it outlines the new policy,
equating a "single function of the trigger" with a "single pull of the trigger," and
connecting the new interpretation to the legislative history of the NFA. (Id.) Finally,
Ruling 2006-2 recognizes that this interpretation represents a policy change and states "to
the extent that previous ATF rulings are inconsistent with this determination, they are
hereby overruled." Id.
Plaintiff claims to have had "legitimate reliance on [A TF's] prior interpretation;"
however, Plaintiff did make changes to the practical operation of the device and its
marketing that contributed to ATF's reconsideration, even if the "theory of operation" of
the Akins Accelerator did not change after Plaintiff submitted his prototype . Plaintiff
decided to retail a device intended for mounting on a different rifle model than that
submitted for testing (the Ruger 10/22 instead of the SKS-type). In conjunction with
requests that ATF review similar devices designed for other rifle models, this change
highlighted the need for ATF to consider whether its interpretation of "single function of
the trigger" remained appropriate. (See R. 159.) This factor certainly diminishes the
weight of Plaintiffs detrimental reliance argument. Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs reliance
interest cannot prevent agency reconsideration where the agency's original opinion
proves erroneous. See Belville Mining Co. v. United States, 999 F.2d 989, 999 (6th Cir.
1993).
13
1431
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 14 of 20
The Court agrees with Defendant that in the face of technological innovation of the
Akins Accelerator and similar devices, ATF's change of position is appropriate. ATF
"must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing
basis." Chevron U.S.A.. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel. Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
863-64 ( 1984). It is clear to this Court that ATF adopted its new position on the phrase
"single function of the trigger" based on its experience and a reasoned analysis and
because "[t]he court need only be satisfied that the bureau 1s policy change .. . [was] not
the result of arbitrary and capricious action," ATF's new position is entitled to deference
and "it is not [the] court's roleO to determine that the bureau's prior practice was the better
position." Gilbert Eguip. Co .. Inc. v. Higgins, 709 F. Supp. 1071, 1078 (S.D. Ala. 1989)
(upholding ATF's classification of a semiautomatic shotgun as "not particularly suitable
for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes"); see also Springfield. Inc. v. Buckles, 292
F.3d 813, 819 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (finding that "agency views may change .. . [and] courts
may require only a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being
deliberately changed, not casually ignored.").
Although Plaintiff urges that Defendant's actions violate the Fifth Amendment's
Due Process Clause, the APA does not require that ATF provide him with a formal
hearing. In considering a procedural due process claim, the "Supreme Court's balancing
test essentially requires [the Court] to weigh three factors: (1) the nature of the private
interest; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest; and (3) the government's
interest in taking its action ... ." Id. (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335
14
1432
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 15 of 20
(1976)). Because of the important interests in regulating Plaintiffs device and Plaintiffs
actual presentation of his arguments in written form to the agency(~ R . 123-R. 136),
the Court is convinced after a balancing of interests that Plaintiff has not been deprived
of due process. First, although Plaintiff identifies an important interest affected by the
reclassification -- his ability to manufacture and sell the Akins Accelerator without
registering under 26 U.S .C. 5822 -- that interest is limited by the pervasive federal
regulation of the manufacture and sale of firearms. See Akins v. United States, 82 Fed.
CI. 619, 624 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2008). As the Court of Federal Claims noted, a business owner
beginning manufacture of rapidly-repeating firearms "ought to be aware of the possibility
that new regulation might even render his property economically worthless." Id. As
Defendant asserts, Plaintiffs interest -- though important -- is lessened by the regulatory
environment.
Given the second Eldridge factor, there is little risk of an erroneous deprivation of
Plaintifrs interest in this case. The cornerstone of procedural due process is notice and a
meaningful opportunity to be heard, and when those conditions are satisfied, there is "no
absolute due process right to an oral hearing." See Forjan v. Leprino Foods. Inc., 209
Fed. Appx. 8 (2nd Cir. 2006); see also Raditch v. U .S., 929 F.2d 478, 480 {9th Cir. 1991)
(holding that due process principles may be satisfied through "notice and an opportunity
to respond," but response may be written or oral). After receiving notice of A TF's new
position, Plaintiff presented a lengthy memorandum requesting that the agency reconsider
its decision, a process for which he retained representation from two outside counsels.
15
1433
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 16 of 20
(See Dkt. 12, Ex. J.) Plaintiff presented 14 pages of supporting legal arguments in his
brief. (Id.) In his brief, Plaintiff included most of the legal arguments which he raises
now supporting his position. It should also be pointed out that a new hearing before the
agency is not the relief Plaintiff seeks for the agency's alleged violation of his procedural
due process.
CT Ray v. Foltz, 370 F.3d 1079, 1085 n.8 (11th Cir. 2004) (observing that
the ordinary remedy for a denial of due process is "the grant of the procedures due").
Instead, he seeks a reversal of the agency's classification of the Akins Accelerator
altogether. (Dkt. 1, ii 9.)
Plaintiff fails to even argue how an oral hearing would have made a difference in
the outcome. Despite Plaintiff's urging to the contrary, his memorandum presented only
questions of law and statutory interpretation, not factual disputes of the sort that require
an oral hearing. See Dredge Corp. v. Penny, 338 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1964) (stating that
"[t]he opportunity to be heard orally on questions of law is not an inherent element of
procedural due process, even where substantial questions of law are involved"). He is
disputing the FTB's legal interpretations of what constitutes a "trigger function." He fails
to identify any mistake of fact in the FTB's understanding of the operation of the Akins
Accelerator. In a follow-up letter to the FTB, Plaintiff noted that he sought oral argument
"because the public policy implications involved in this case will have long-term effects
on the NFA community," not because he needed an opportunity to dispute the facts on
which ATF based its decision. (R. 147.) However, inasmuch as Plaintiff had a
meaningful chance to present his case to ATF in writing and there is little chance the
16
1434
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 17 of 20
agency's decision proved erroneous, the second Eldridge factor supports ATF's
determination.
While the Complaint describes Plaintiffs due process claim only as Defendant's
alleged failure to provide him with a hearing, he asserts in his Response to Defendant's
Motion that "Defendant was required to provide a notice of proposed rulemaking via
publication in the Federal Register" before issuing ATF Ruling 2006-2. (Dkt. 25, 6.)
However, "the APA's notice and comment requirements apply to substantive rules
established through agency rulemaking, but do not apply to interpretive rules." Hi-Tech
Phanus.. Inc. v. Crawford, 505 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (citing 5 U.S.C.
553(b)). "Interpretive rules are 'issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency's
construction of the statutes and rules which it administers."' Id. (quoting Chrysler Corp.
v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 n.31 ( 1979)). As has been discussed, Ruling 2006-2
explains how ATF interprets the definition of "machinegun" contained in 26 U.S.C.
5845(b) in the context of a device like the Akins Accelerator, and it is, therefore, an
interpretive rule to which the APA's notice and comment requirements do not apply.
Finally, the third Eldridge factor weighs strongly in favor of A TF's action. The
protection of the public's health and safety is a paramount government interest which
justifies summary administrative action . .. [i]ndeed, deprivation of property to protect
the public health and safety is 'one of the oldest examples' of permissible summary
action." Gun South, 877 F.2d at 867 (quoting Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and
Reclamation Assoc., 452 U.S. 264, 300 (1981)). Weapons with a high rate of fire are
17
1435
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 18 of 20
extremely desirable to criminals, increasing the government's interest in summary action

to close off a loophole by which they could be acquired. See generally United States v.
Kirk, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 12670, at *n.2 (5th Cir. 1997). As Plaintiff correctly
observed in his briefing to the Court of Federal Claims, if the Akins Accelerator is not
classified as a "machinegun," it would "not fall under any federal regulatory scheme of
any kind." See Akins v. United States, No . 08-136C (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2008) (No. 6). This
unhindered capability would be wholly inconsistent with the strict regulation of
machineguns imposed by the NF A and the prohibition on post-1986 machineguns
imposed by the GCA. See United States v. Golding, 332 F.3d 838, 840 (5th Cir. 2003)
(discussing the "risk ... presented by the inherently dangerous nature of machineguns,"
as shown by " Congress's decision to regulate the possession and transfer of this specific
type of firearm"); United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1168 (10th Cir. 2001)
("banning possession of post 1986 machine guns is an essential part of the federal scheme
to regulate interstate commerce in dangerous weapons"). Thus, the Court agrees with
Defendant that ATF has a powerful interest in correctly interpreting the statute to close
the loophole created by its earlier interpretation of the machinegun definition and
preserve the integrity of the system regulating dangerous weapons.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that the definition of machinegun found in 26 U.S.C.
5845(b) "is unconstitutionally vague." (Dkt. 1, 1j 43.) Although Plaintiff alleges that the
statute is vague both "on its face" and "as applied to Plaintiff," Defendant is correct that
this Court need only review the statute as-applied, because "[v]agueness challenges to
18
1436
RIF
Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 19 of 20
statutes not threatening First Amendment interests are examined in light of the facts of the
case at hand." United States v. A wan, 966 F .2d 1415, 1424 ( 11 'h Cir. 1992) (quoting
Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988)). A statute is unconstitutionally vague "only
where no standard of conduct is outlined at all; when no core of prohibited activity is
defined." Ford Motor Co. v. Texas Dep't of Transp., 264 F.3d 493, 509 (5th Cir. 2001).
On the other hand, a statute is not unconstitutionally vague unless it is "substantially
incomprehensible," and "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning." Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 749 F.2d 663, 669 (11th Cir. 1984);
United States v. Wilson, 175 Fed. Appx. 294, 297 (11th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiffs' own allegations support the well-established precedent that 26 U.S.C.
5845(b}, although permitting multiple interpretations, does not fall within this realm of
incomprehensibility. Plaintiffs own actions in communicating repeatedly with ATF
suggest that the statute gave him fair notice that Akins Accelerators might well fall within
the prohibited standard of conduct. He sufficiently understood the section 5845(b)
definition to submit the device to FTB for classification. (Dkt. 12, Exs. B, C.) When
Plaintiff began to offer the device for sale, he used ATF's original opinion as a marketing
tool.
(See,~.
R. 196) (noting that "especially important was that the Accelerator had
received not one, but two approval letters from BA TFE through their Fiream1s Technical
Branch").) The fact that ATF's initial classification was later deemed in error does not
render the statute invalid for vagueness. Lawful statutes may be susceptible of multiple
interpretations, and the mere fact that " there may be some 'close cases' or difficult
19
1437
RIF

Document 29
Filed 09/23/2008
Page 20 of 20
decisions does not render a policy unconstitutionally vague." Hills v. Scottsdale Unified
School Dist. No. 48, 329 F.3d 1044, 1056 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Ford Motor Co. v.
Texas Dep't of Transp., 264 F.3d 493, 509 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that "[a] statute is not
unconstitutionally vague merely because a company or an individual can raise uncertainty
about its application to the facts of their case").
ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Summary
Judgment (Pkt. 19) is granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment for Defendant,
terminate any pending motions, and close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on September 23, 2008.
s/ Richard A. Lazzara
RICHARD A. LAZZARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Counsel of Record
20
1438
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

Witness: ~ Kingery
CO:
Or, to put it differently, if it's necessary to
appropriate.
send out the jury or to have an offer of proof, the court will
do that.
5 : 00 .
We 1 ll proceed as far as we can before we break at
Is there anything else at this time?
MR. HAANSTAD:
MR. F.Am..:
THE COURT:
No, Your
Honor.
All right.
Bring in the jury.
please remove the exhibits before the jury comes in .
right there, yes.
10
The ones
Does anyone need to refresh before the jury
response . )
11
(No
12
THE COURT :
13
(Jury in at 3:59 p . m. )
14
THE COURT:
F~:
All right.
The defense may proceed .

The defense calls Len Savage, Your Honor .
THB REPORTER:
17
Raise your right hand, please.
LEN SAVAGE, DEFENSE WITNESS, DULY SWORN
18
19
Would you
comes in?
16
THE
REPORTER~
State your name and spell your name for
the record.
20
THE WITNESS:
21
CM:Dt
Your Honor.
MR.
CM:DI
No,
My name is Len Savage, S A V A G E.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
22
BY MR. FAHL:
23
Q.
Mr. Savage, where are you from?
24
A.
I'm from Georgia.
25
Q.
Where in Georgia?
144
1439
RIF
Jury Trial
117/08
Witness: Max Kingery
04:01
OCGZ
U:GZ
M:oa
A.
Franklin, Georgia.
Q.
And how are you employed?
A.
I co-own a firearms business with my wife, Historic Arms,
LLC.
Q.
How long have you owned that company?
A.
I think we formed it in 2001 and got our FFL in 2002 if I
remember correctly.
Q.
What is the nature of your company?
A.
I do firearms research and development.
We design
10
semi-automatic versions of historic machine guns .
11
do NFA repair, National Firearms Act covered weapons, machine
12
guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencer.
13
Q.
And what types of weapons have you designed?
14
A.
Specifically?
15
Q.
Maybe a couple examples of some particular weapons.
16
A.
The brand Mark II semi-automatic, the 971 Sport Rifle, the
17
RPD semi-automatic, the MAG-58 semi-automatic, and a host of
18
other caliber conversion systems.
19
but
20
Q.
21
guidelines must you follow?
22
A.
23
1968.
24
Code, Chapter 26, Section 5B45(b).
25
gun are what I deal with.
Okay.
Sometimes we
may be missing a few,
In designing a semi-automatic weapon what rules or
Well, the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of
The controlling part of that is gonna be United States
The definitions of a machine
145
1440
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/0B

Q.
And the purpose --
tM:OS
' oc:oc
THE COURT:
One second, please.
Please approach,
Counsel.
(At side bar on the record.)
THE COURT:
Special Agent Harding is in the back.
just wanted to remind you of that.
testify again?
MR. FAHL:
THE
10
COURT:
MR. FAHL:
Is it likely that he is to
Not at all.
Okay.
Just wanted to be sure .
Thank you.
(End of discussion at side bar.)
11
12
BY MR. FAHL:
13
Q.
14
semi-automatic does not function as a machine gun .
15
A.
16
that they're compliant with all federal law.
17
Q.
18
or the role that they play when you 1 re designing a firearm?
19
A.
20
anything I design and build is compliant with the law.
21
Q.
22
designing a f irearrn?
23
A.
24
them weekly.
25
the time and whether or not it's already approved.
And the purpose of that is to make sure that your
That is correct .
We also send them to the ATF to verify
And is that their role in helping you design these firearms,
I call it cheap insurance.
I want to make sure that
How frequent is your contact with the ATF when you're
It varies.
There's been times where I've almost contacted

It all depends on what design I'm working on at
On a regular
146
1441
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

1
basis to be sure.
Q.
the federal firearm license?
A.
other minor requirements, safe storage, understanding of the
federal firearms law, allowing the ATF to come in and do their
inspections from time to time to verify that I am following the
law.
What is required of you to obtain and keep the FFL, which is
Well, an application letting t .hem know that there s a couple
THE COURT :
9
04:05
CW:05
OG5
CM:llS
THE WITNESS:
10
Would you please pull your mic closer?

Forgive me .
11
BY MR. FAHL:
12
Q.
13
you do?
14
A.
I repaired and built machinery.
15
Q.
You said you did research and development for some other
16
firearm companies, which companies have you done work for?
17
A.
18
Light Weapon Systems .
19
Q.
Are
20
A.
Yes, I am.
21
Q.
How have you become familiar with it?
22
A.
I have repaired a few of them.
23
systems that I've worked on utilize an AR-15 fire control.
24
Q.
25
weapons and AR-15 fire control systems?
Prior to your work as owner of Historic Arms, LLC, what did
Ohio Ordinance Works, Century International Arms, Calico

With a C.
you familiar with the AR-15 weapon?
A couple of the firearm
And are familiar with ATF regulations concerning AR-15
147
1442
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08
OCCll
CM:oe
: CM:oe
A.
Yes, I am.
Q.
And are you familiar with M-16 weapons or M-16 fire control?
A.
Yee, I have, and I've not only repaired them but I also have
fired them.
Q.
weapons and machine guns, are you familiar with the ammunition
that goes with those particular weapons?
A.
Yes, I am.
Q.
And are you familiar with the nature of types of ammunition
And in your training and experience with semi-automatic
10
and what the functions of each part of the ammunition does?
11
A.
Yes, I am.
12
Q.
Why must you be familiar with the different types, brands or
13
specifications of ammunition?
14
A.
Because my personal welfare and health depends on it.
15
Q.
And why is that?
16
A.
You put the wrong ammunition in a firearm and it could kill
17
you or injure you.
18
Q.
Have you ever testified as an ask expert witness before?
19
A.
Yes, I have.
20
Q.
Where was that?
21
A.
That would be out in Seattle.
22
Q.
What was the name of that case?
23
A.
U.S. v. Quan .
24
Q.
What was the nature of the Kwan case?
25
A.
The nature of my testimony had to do with a supposed machine
148
1443
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08
D4."117
O<D7
1 O<OI
gun.
Q.
What kind of machine gun was that?
A.
It wasn' t a machine gun - -
Q.
(Interrupting)
A.
-- it was a semi - automatic .
Q.
What kind of a machine gun was it alleged to have been?
A.
An M-14.
Q.
Have you published any articles about firearms that you
either designed or built or any other firearms?
Well, what kind
I haven't published any, but there's been quite a few
10
A.
11
published about my firearms and some of my work .
12
Q.
What sort of technical training do you have?
13
A.-
I have an honorable withdrawal card from the UAW, I'm a
14
journeyman machine builder.
15
Q,
When did you first design and build a firearm?
16
A.
That would be in the eighth grade.
17
Q.
And what type of weapon was that?
18
A.
It was a simple .22 zip type gun.
19
stirring in the school at the time.
20
Q.
Are you involved in any legislation pending before Congress?
21
A.
I have had some involvement with the Fairness and Firearms
22
Testing Act.
23
Q.
And what's the nature of that legislation?
24
A.
It would mandate that the ATF videotape all examinations and
25
tests of firearms.
A gun is a very simple machine.
It caused quite a
149
1444
RIF
Jury Trial - l/7/08

OCI
Q.
Exhibit
A.
Yes, I have.
Q.
When did you examine this firearm?
A.
This afternoon during lunch.
Q.
And did you test fire the firearm?
A.
No, I did not.
Q.
Is there a reason why you would not need to test fire the
weapon?
11
wouldn't want to attempt it .
14
15
From my examination and from what I saw on the video, I
MR. FAHL:
I offer Mr. Savage as an expert witness,
Your Honor.
THE COURT :
Do you wish to be heard or to
cross-examine?
Your Honor, could we approach?
16
MR. HAANSTAD:
17
THE COURT:
18
(At side bar on the record.)
19
MR. HAANSTAD:
Yes.
I take it from your foundation that you
20
are trying to lay that you are proposing to have him testify as
21
to -- provide expert testimony.
22
04:09
which is sitting over on that desk there?
A.
13
114:119
1Q
12
IM.111
Have you examined the firearm at issue here today that's
MR . FAHL:
Yeah.
The testimony that he will be
23
proffering is, first of all, hie examination which I think you
24
concede is all right.
25
What he saw when he looked at the weapon.
The other thing I would have him testify is about the
150
1445
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

OC:ID
OClD
MR . HAANSTAD :
MR. FAHL:
MR. HAANSTAD:
MR . FAHL:
He hasn't seen that.
What?
He hasn't seen that.
No, he hasn ' t seen it.
In this particular
firearm he did not see it.
to -- I mean, that he is familiar with hammer follow .
will develop -- and if you want me
The other thing that
MR. HAANSTAD:
will establish is his
(Interrupting)
First of all, I'm not
10
sure if I understand why that's relevant, the hammer follow.
11
mean, there's no indication that that's what was going on with
12
respect to this particular gun.
13
it makes any difference under the statute.
14
trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what
15
the cause it's a machine gun .
16
MR. FAHL:
And there's no indication that

If you pull the
And that's where I think we have some
17
issues .
18
have to -- you know, it has to go without stopping -- until then
19
-- and that was adopted by the 7th Circuit .
20
IN:ID
hammer follow condition.
The Staples case, footnote one Justice Thomas said you
And under that jury instruction, if that one goes
21
through, you know, we'll have an issue about the hammer follow
22
and what happened with the three rounds and then stopping.
23
It definitely will go to knowledge .
24
MR. HAANSTAD:
25
I kind of wonder if we should resolve
that before we sort of risk confusing the jury on an issue
151
1446
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

WitnU5 : Mu lt1n..ry
that's not going to be cf any significance in the case.

I mean, I ve read Staples and I'm familiar with
footnote l.
4
'DC11
as an expert witness?
MR. HAARSTAD:
'l'BB COORT:
MR. HAANSTAD:
been laid,
w~t
ie the objection?
I don't believe tha.t a foundation has
I don't think tbat he's established that he's got
kind of testimony.
I am going to take up this issue outside
THE COURT ;
the presence of the jury.
14
(Bnd of discussion at side bar. )
15
TES COURT:
16
Members of the
jury, please
retum to the
jury room for a while.
17
(Jury out at 4:11 p.m.)
18
THB COURT;
19
You may v.oir dire the witness, Mr. Haanstad.
20
MR. HAANSTAD:
21
oc:11
And
requisite training or experience to qtialify him to provide thia
13
OQa
Yes .
10
12
ocn
Do you have any objection to this witneae
9
OCH
THB COURT:
Be seated,, please.
Thank you, Your .H onor.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION
22
BY MR . HAANSTADi
23
Q.
24
right?
25
A.
Mr . savage, you have had no
trade-schooli~
or gunsmithing,
When you say I have no gunsmithing --
152
1447
RIF
l1ny Trial 1/7/01
Witness:
CM:1a
Max
ltngery
Q.
I 1m sorry, youve had no trade school in gunsmithing; is
that right?
A.
No, sir, I haven't, that's a maintenance course.
Q.
So you have not had any, right?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
And you ve never had any formal
classification, right?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
And you have no formal training in federal firearms laws,
tr~
in firearms
I 'm not in law enforcement.
right?
oc1>
11
A.
No, air, other
12
Q.
(Interrupting")
13
respect to AR-15 to M-16 conversions, right?
14
A.
When you say training that 1 s - -
15
Q.
(Interrupting)
16
A.
From a school or from another master gunsmith or from
17
anotber manufacturer?
18
training --
19
Q,
And you've had no specialized trainiD,Q' with
(Interrupting)
Specialized fo::mal training?
What kind of formal training have you had?
THE COURT:
21
Ila~
I mean, I need you to -- I have had
One second.
Please give him a chance to
answer fully.
22
Go ahead.
23
THB WITNESS:
I'm kind of confused, he said did I have
24
any training,
I regul.arly meet with otber manufacturers,
25
sometimes in person, sometimes they come to my shop.
And we
163
1448
RIF
Jury Trial
l/7/08
Witness: Ma Kingery
Kta
oa
114:1
oc1
Kl4
discuss design characteristics.
trained.
BY MR. BAANSTAD:
Q.
had these infl:>nial gatherings with other manufact\,\rers.
A.
Yes, sir.
O.
And you haven ' t taken any armorer's courses put on by gun
manufacturers, have you?
A.
Okay.
In that sense I've been
No, it was not at a school.
So the answer would be no formal training, but you've
I design guns.
I think what you're akin to saying is
10
because - - if I can clraw an analogy here, are you_saying if I
11
were an automobile designer because
12
mechanic I'm not qualifi-e d to he an automobile designer?
13
Q.
14
any axmorer'e couraes that were put on by gun manufacturers.
15
A.
Their maintenance eourses, no.
16
Q.
You have not?
17
A,
No.
18
o.
And you don't have
19
firearms classifications?
20
A,.
That sounds like a federal law enforct!ment class.
21
o.
So you don't?
22
A.
No, sir,
23
worked extenaively with the ATP, and
24
firearms
25
been fairly constant comnunication with the ATF.
wasn't a certified
No, I m just asking the question whether you have e\'er had
any
formal experienc$, do you, in
But I have designed quite a few firearms and
clas~ified
have bad many of my
as lawful to possess.
Since about 2001 it 1 s
154
1449
RIF
Jury Tr11 - 1/7/01

wttness: Max lt1ngery
OC:1S
DC
oas
And
think I heard you J;ay that you've designed firearms
Q.
with the ATF, right?
A.
they 1 re compliant with all the laws, and since theyve approved
them, if you will, or classified them as lawful to possess.
Q.
your CV, ygu claim that similar methods to what you were just
saying that you and your company both have, q\lote, always worked
very closely with BATP'E.
Well, I said I submitted them to the A1'P' to verify .t hat
Okay.
In your
I have a copy of your CV, okay?
And in
10
A.
Yes, 8ir, we have.
11
Q.
But in fact, you have no formal working relationship with
12
the agency, right?
13
A.
14
working relationship with the A1'P.
15
and I'm a federal licensee.
16
mandated by law to have a working relationship with the ATF.
17
Q.
18
submitting things and asking them to rule on them, right?
19
A.
If I want to' be a manufacturer I better have a formal
They re m'f regulating
ag~
have to work with them, I am
So when ygu say you work with them, you 1 re talking about
Yes, and I also had ATP officers come to me and ask them to
explain ome things and they have come to my shop for t:raining
OC1t
21
if you will.
22
Q.
Who would that be?
23
A.
Agent
24
showed up.
25
isn't a fireann and requires a 4473 for transfer.
Bickn~es
(ph) I believe out of the Atlanta office
We had about a 45-minute session of what is and what
156
1450
RIF
Jury Trial 1/7/QI

Witness: MIX ltingtry
oa
ec:1
...1
ocn
t Kt1
Q.
I'm sorry, Agent Bickneea?
A.
I think, Ralph BicJmees I belie'Ve was h,is name.
tell you the date I remember the last time they came out.
was Valentine's Day.
Q.
Okay.
A.
I'm trying to think.
to explain things to -
Q.
(Interrupting)
A.
-- local agents.
And I can
It
Anyone else?
I have bad occasional calls and asked
From ATF?
Yes, local agents.
I've got a good
10
working relationship with the local office.
11
Q.
12
relied on you for advice?
13
A.
14
maybe ita Joel Shepard, we've discussed things and he has
15
called and asked questions.
16
Q.
17
ever
15
A.
What do you mean by formal?
19
Q.
Well, I get the impression that maybe some ATF agents are
20
stopping by to talk with you.
21
necessarily that theyre aort of working in their official
22
capacity when they do that.
23
A.
Really?
24
Q.
Okay.
25
for advice on firearms?
Okay.
Anyone in addition to Agent Ralph Bicknees that' a
I don't have the name in front of me, but I wanna think
Okay.
Now, you 1 re not suggesting, are you, that ATP has
so~ght
you
ou~
as a formal advisor or
consultant~
I don't get the impression
They showed me .their credentials.
They showed you their credentials and then asked you
156
1451
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

WitMH: Mu Kingery
ea1
04:11
OC\I
DCl
oc1
A.
Theyve asked me questions about firearms.
0.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
Q,
so you think that you have a closer working relationship
with ATF than other people who occasionally seek fcrmal rulings
from the agency and things like that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You classify your relationship as different from that.
A,
Pardon me?
10
Q.
You would classify your relationship with the A'J!P as
11
different from that sort of ordinary manufacturer who might
12
occasionally seek formal rulings from the agency?
13
A.
14
designed, yes, it is mQr than average.
15
in the industry seek me out to do this.
16
Q.
17
technical advisor
18
court cases, ri-gbt?
19
A.
Yea, sir.
20
Q.
And you list Kwan first of all, right?
21
A.
Yes, sir.
22
Q,
And did you actually testify in that case?
23
A.
Yes, I did.
24
Q.
And you list United States vs. Glover?
25
A.
Yes, sir.
I mea.n --
DUe to the fact of the volume of the firearm systems I
Okay.
That 1 s why other people
Now, you say that in your CV that you have been a
or
~ert
witness in the following
fede~l
Are you familiar with that part of your CV?
Yes, air.
157
1452
RIF
lury Trial - 1/7/08

Wiiness: Max Kingery
oat
KH
oc11
OCH
Dal
Q.
Did you testify in that case?
A.
No, they dismissed.
Q.
You list United States vs. Wrenn?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you testify in that .C"'8e?
A.
No, they dismissed the firearms charges.
Q.
So the only time where you actually were an expert witness
was Kwan?
A.
That I was allowed to testify, yes.
1 0
Q.
Okay.
11
you claim to. have. been mi expert witnese in Glover and Wremi.
12
Hor.Ir is that?
13
A.
I was the expert.
14
o.
You were an expert witness?
15
A.
I did not testify.
16
having the ability to testify, When it was found that they
17
goofed.
18
Q.
19
in your CV that you submitted in the Kwan case that you were a
20
technical advisor or expert witness in the following federal
21
court cases, and you then list U.S. vs. Glover and U.S. vs.
22
Wrenn, in which of those two cases were you an expert witness?
23
A.
24
never had the opportunity to testify, they dismieaed the charges
25
as soon as they figured out they made a mistake.
Now, in the CV that you submitted in the Kwan caae,
They brcught me in to do the test.
They -dismissed the charges prior to me
They meaning the ATF.
Just two things there then.
First of all, so when it says
I was hired as an expert witness in both of those cases.
158
1453
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/01

wttnus: ftlX ~ingery
OQll
oca
oa1
OQ'I
.a1
Q.
ch~es
A.
That a correct.
o.
But before they were dismissed the district judge ruled that
you could not testify as an expert in that case, right?
A.
trick you did.
Q,
an expert in Wrenn?
Okay.
Now, that's correet, in Wrenn the firearms related
were
di~misaed.
Well, I guess that U.S. Attorney kind of pulled the same
Is that right?
The judge
~led
that you couldn't testify as
to ait in the courtroom.
10
~.
was part of the dismissal in the agreement.
l2
it was pretty much a zoo.
13
Q.
14
with respect to your examination of the firearm, right?
15
A.
16
attorney didn't turn it into the court.
17
Q,
So it wasn't submitted to the court.
18
A.
That is correct.
19
O.
And that report wasn't submitted to the court and then you
20
sat through the testimony, and on the basis of those two things
21
that 1 13 why you were not allowed to testify as an expert.
22
A.
I don't kn.ow.
23
Q.
Okay.
24
testify as an expert witness .
25
A.
Becauae they all<>wed me
And that
When that happened
Well, in that case YoU had tlOt prepared a written report
That' e incorrect, I had prepued a written report.
The
I don't lmow what the basis was.
So we' re clear, in Glover and Wrenn then ycu did not
Glover and Wrenn they dismissed th4! firearms charges.
No
159
1454
RIF
Jury Trla1 - 1/7/01

W1inus: Max ltingery
aa:&
ocu
MZ
OCD
expert testified in Glover and Wre1U1 about the firear1l\8, for the
government or for the defense.
Q.
which you were actually a n expe.r t witness waa Kwan.
A.
The only case that I was given the oppoz:tunity to testify
was
u.s. v.
Q.
Okay.
dccwnenta:ty fil111B, one is called BA'l'P'B Fails the Teat, and the
other is called The Gang, right?
So the only case in which you were an actual, in
Okay.
Kwan.
In your CV y0u claim that you were featured in two
10
A.
That is correct.
11
Q.
They're documentaries?
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
Who produced them?
14
A.
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms OWnership, and I
15
believe Gun awn.era. of America had to do with BA1'FE Fails the
16
Test as well, if I remember correctly.
17
o. Now,
18
that an organization, would you say, who has as one of its, the
19
main planks in its agenda battering ATF?
20
A.
21
sure that the ATP follows the law.
22
Q.
Okay.
23
A.
The
24
Q.
Okay.
25
website for the movie the, as you call it, a documentary The
I don't recall --
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is
I wouldn't call it battling the ATP, I would call it making
What about The Gang, who produced that?
Gang
was produced by JPFO.
How, have you ever seen an advertisement on the JPFO
160
1455
RIF
Jury Trial - l/7/01

vttnessz Max k1ngery
MD
OQI
OCM
KM
. oas
Gang?
Therea a pretty prominent advertiaement that'a displayed
there right now for it.
A.
Yes, I have seen
o.
In that advertisement -- or to the side of that
advertisement it
BATPB is notorious for ite incompetence,
perjury, and
A.
front of me.
it.
clai~
that, and this is a quote from it:

ra~iam,
The
routine
outright brutality to fireal:'1n8 owners?
I' 11 have to take your word for it.
I don't have it in
Would it surprise you to know that that' a the type of
10'
Q.
organization that produced this documentary that you say
12
featured you?
13
A.
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
publications.
16
right? Yes, national publications, in which
17
designed and manufactured, as well as discoveries of ATF
18
'Firea:rms Technology Branch behavior, have be.e n published in
19
these publications.
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
How, when you say your discoveries of A'l'P Firearms
22
Technology Branch behavior, can you give us an
23
A.
24
make sense scientifically or mechanically, and upon a conference
25
call with the ATF management I discovered quite by accident that
Sure.
Now, also in your CV you list a number of
You call them I think national publications,

p~ucts
you have
That's what you represent here, right?
exampl~
of that?
I had a problem with a classification that didn't
161
1456
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/01

Witaus: Nu 1t1n111ry
llCl!I
oca
they don't have written standardized testing procedures.
means if I send in a firearm today it may be tested in one
manner, but if
anot}ler gentleman at FTB tesl:s it, because there's no written
standardized testing procedure
completely different tests with two completely different test
results.
Q,
against ATP in that way, right?
Okay.
send the identical firearm in tomorrow and
could be tested with two
i~
Now, in a few different forums you've spoken out
Not just in these publications,
10
but also. in some of these movies that were put togethex: like The
11
Gang?
12
A.
When you say spoken out?
18
Q.
Well, you've been critical of the way that ATF conducts
14
tests, let's say, for example; ia that rig.ht?
15
A.
16
testing procedure so aa a manufacturer I can follow that
17
standardized testing procedure and will know how my firearm is
18
going to be tested and to design it .accordingly.
19
Q.
I ve been asking the ATP to get a written standardized
So --
Now, as a result of your working with ATF, have you come to
feel that somehow they're res_pcmsible for damaging your
20
21
business?
22
A.
23
. t1G1
Which
Somehow when you say, are we talking maliciously or -THB COURT:
one
second.
Mr. Haanstad, tm curious
24
about this queation and whether or not it goes to this witness
25
ability to testify aa an eJq>ert for the defense.
It appears to
162
1457
RIF
Jury Tr11l ~ 1/7/0I

Winess: Max 1ti11gery
go rather far afield.
MR. HAANSTAD:
Honor.
and te$tify based on his expert -- based on any kind of
expertise tha.t he has, it appears that Mr. Savage is instead
attempting to use this case as a platform to advance some sort
of political agenda.
8
9
NII
think goea to the bias of this particular witness if he' a going
10
to testify about procedures that the ATF conducted in this
11
particular case or ATF procedures more generally.
actually he didn't testify, but whatever his involvement was in
14
the United States vs. Wrenn case - THE COURT:
15
I have a transcript from Wrenn in front of
me.
17
MR. HAANSTAD:
18
THE COURT:
19
asked are similar to the ones that were asked in Wrenn.

MR . HAANSTAD':
21
TBS COURT:
should say concern.
I wasn't aware of that.
So I go back to my original request, I

You seem to be going far afield.
23
MR, HAANSTAD:
24
THE COURT:
25
Okay.
And it appears that the questions you've
20
22
M:D
Apparently after Mr. Savage testified ill - - or
13
16
All I 1 111 trying to establish is that rather than come in
And where the specific line of questioning was going I
12
We11, and I apologize if it does, Your
Okay.
The last aeries of questions related to
matters other than any opinion that may be offered by Mr. savage
163
1458
RIF
Jury Trial - J./7/01

Witness: MIX linvery
ea1
and whether or not Mr. Savage is competent to offer such opinion
or opinions
MR. HAANSTAD:
THE COURT:
lil'Cl9
oca
Confine your examination to those
concerns.
oa1
Okay.
MR. HAANS'l'AD:
Yee, Your Honor.
BY MR. HAANSTAD:
Q.
publications, one of them that you list is TAPCO.
Now, you also talk about in your CV, again these nation.al
10
A.
That's right, they publicize that and send that out to
11
practically every FPL bolder and anybody else who wants it.
12
Their catalogs are somewhat c:olle.ctable, they put them out once
13
or twice a year.
14
Q.
15
publication?
16
A.
17
inside -- there was a short blurb about me and that I had
18
designed it for a lacal firearms- manufacturer in Georgia.
19
Q.
What do you mean by a short blurb?
20
A.
A letter.
21
the front cover.
22
Q.
23
magazine that mentioned you?
24
A.
Yea.
25
Q.
Okay.
Okay,
Have you had an article published in that
the 971 Sport Rifle was on the front cover along
I had
Just a short letter to everybody on the inside of

By
Buddy Daniels .
So Buddy Daniels wrote a letter that was published in this
And do you knew
~hat
the
s~andards
or criteria are
164
1459
RIF
Jiil')'
Trial - 1/7/01
Witnus: Max l1ngery
p~lished
for having something
A.
I have no clue.
Q.
You don't know if there's a board. of experts, for e xanple,
that's going to aecide what's going to be published?
A.
I told ycu I have no clue.
MR. FA.Ht.:
in TAPCO?
I 1 m going to object, Your Honor.
Again,
this seems to be going to the same -- if we want to talk about
THE COURT:
9
114:19
10
MR. HAANSTADz
questions I have.
13
thingB" that he represents in his CV as somehow being --
14
Typically when experts provide a CV they list
They're all in that same light.
That is, the
15
publications.
16
otherwise somehow prestigious in the area, or in the field, and
17
it doesn't appear that these are.
19
They're publications that are peer reviewed or
If you don't think that's an
appropri~te
line of
questioning I have nothing further.

THB COURT:
20
21
MIO
Well, Your Honor, those are all the
12
18
oao
Ask another
question.
11
.c.
Objection sustained.
Does defense ha'Ve any further que.stions of
the witness before the court rules?
22
MR. FAHI..:
23
THE COURT:
No, Your Honor.
Mr. Savage may proceed and testify based
24
upon
25
question with respect to which the government believes the
hi~
experience in the field.
If there is a specific
166
1460
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

Max Kingery
Wi~ness:
witness is not qualified, it will certainly have to voice any
objection that it may have, otherwise we'll proceed as one
normally would on direct and cross-examination.
Bring in the jury .
(Jury
in at 4 :31 p.m.)
CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FAHL:
Q.
today?
Now, Mr. Savage, you testified that you examined this gun
10
A.
Yes, I did.
11
Q.
And in what way was the gun examined?
12
A.
Well, I wasn't allowed to touch it, but Agent -- or, I'm
13
sorry, FEO Kingery was able to display it to me and perform a
14
function check for me as I observed.
He also opened up the weapon so that I could look at
IM:JZ
04:32
16
its internal components, as well as remove the hand guards from
17
the barrel so that I could look for some marking and information
18
that would be stamped on the barrel.
19
Q.
20
to you if anything?
21
A.
That firearm is<malfunctioning.
22
Q.
And how so?
23
A.
The frame of receiver is not the frame of receiver of a
24
machine gun.
25
auto sear.
And with regard to the systems check, what did that reveal
Specifically, there's not an axle pin hole for the

So it doesn 1 t have a provision for an auto sear.
166
1461
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

OQJ
M!3:I
I 114:3'
So, therefore, the frame or the receiver of that weapon is not
the frame or receiver of a machine gun, and it did not contain
what is called a DIAS in the industry, or a drop-in auto sear.
Q.
malfunctioning
A.
Yes, it is.
Q.
And what is the malfunction?
A.
The malfunction specifically is that when placed in the
unmarked position the disconnecter wasn't functioning properly.
So how did your examination reveal that it was a
is it a malfunctioning AR-15?
The reason it's unmarked is you're not supposed to put
10
11
it there.
That particular firearm when it was built, according
12
to my research, I contacted Olympic Arms, and they told me mid
13
'80s.
14
fire control components.
15
Q.
16
when manufacturing this type of rifle?
17
A.
18
number range?
19
Q.
Yes .
20
A.
They would have used an M-16 trigger, disconnector, harrmer .
21
Sometimes a selector, sometimes not.
22
Q.
23
reveal?
24
A.
25
era.
Prior to 1986, most AR-lSs were manufactured with M-16
And which fire control components would be used generally
When that particular firearm was manufactured in the serial
And when you did your visual inspection what did that
That it was standard for the firearm that was built in that
It also revealed that it had an AR-15 bolt carrier, not an
167
1462
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/0B

M-16 bolt carrier.
Q.
carrier?
A.
And what is the significance of having an AR-15 bolt
An AR-15 bolt carrier precludes or stops full auto fire.
CM3t
043'
CM:JS
In an M-16, the auto sear, or the part that holds back
the hammer and allows full auto fire, the M-16 bolt carrier is
what contacts the auto sear and allows the hammer to trip in
time when the bolt and bolt carrier are locked in battery.
There was no auto sear nor provision for one and it had an AR-15
10
bolt carrier .
11
fire.
12
Q,
13
rifle?
14
A.
The barrel of the rifle was marked caliber 5.56.
15
Q.
And how about the side of the rifle, what was that marked?
16
A.
It's marked .223-5.56.
17
Q.
And what does that mean?
18
A.
That means that that receiver could have been built with
19
either a .223 chamber and barrel, or a 5.56 NATO chamber and
20
barrel.
21
Q.
And what's the difference?
22
A.
A .223 Remington is a varmint cartridge.
23
shooting stuff like prairie dogs three or 400 yards out.
What did you notice when you inspected the barrel of the
24
OQS
25
It's designed specifically to prevent full auto
It 1 s designed for
You're looking at a target that's about six inches in

diameter.
A .223 has got what they call a faster lock time.
It
168
1463
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

OCI
has to do with the type of primer.
be different.
Q.
ammunition .a nd a S.56 ammunition?
A.
rifles.
Q.
And 5.56?
A.
5.56 NATO is a military caliber, it's used in the M-16, it's
used in quite a few other weapons .
Even grain rate on the bullet could be different.
In layman's terms, what's the difference between a .223
.223 Remington atmlUilition is typically used in bolt action
Now, you've reviewed the reports that Officer Kingery
10
Q.
11
in this case?
12
A.
Yes, I did.
13
Q.
With regard to Mr. Kingery's October 20th report, he noted a
14
condition called hammer follow.
15
jury?
16
A.
17
is where the hanuner on the inside of the firearm follows the
18
bolt carrier forward as it strips around and puts it into the
19
chamber.
20
D437
Burn rate on powders could
i~ued
Can you explain that for the
Hammer follow or hanuner follow-through or hammer follow-down
It's exceedingly dangerous because of the pressures
21
involved with this type of ammunition.
If the bolt doesn't lock
22
into the lugs before the hammer and the firing pin and then runs
23
into the primer and then you have an ignition, if for some
24
reason that bolt's not locked due to hanuner follow, you could
25
have a catastrophic failure.
169
1464
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

Max Kingery
W1~ess :
CM!31
CM:Ja
043'
OCI
Q.
Now, can a hammer follow occur in the semi-automatic, the
setting that's marked fire on this rifle, or can it only occur
in the unmarked third setting?
A.
Are we talking this specific firearm?
Q.
Yeah.
A.
It only happened when you flipped it to that unmarked area.
Q.
Is there a reason why it would do that?
that's different about that third selector?
A.
Is there something
When you say different, different in an M-16 or different
10
in an --
11
Q.
12
AR-15, is there something that's distinctive about the third
13
setting that would cause it to occur or not occur in the third
14
but not the second or vice-versa?
15
A.
16
And what it does, it keeps the disconnector from engaging the
17
hammer.
18
Q.
19
sear is present?
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
Why not?
22
A.
Because that 1 s the purpose of an auto sear is to prevent
23
hammer follow.
24
are in battery and it is safe to ignite the cartridge.
25
Q.
In the AR-15.
If you have an M-16 selector switch in the
There's a cam that's been ground into the selector shaft.
Can hammer follow occur when a properly functioning auto
It's to make sure that the bolt and bolt carrier
And when you examined this gun it had an AR-15 bolt carrier?
170
1465
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

04:19
009
oat
A.
Yes .
Q.
Does the AR-15 bolt carrier have any relationship to harruner
follow?
A.
typically has a ramp ground into it to prevent hammer follow
from impacting the firing pin.
put a notch on the hammer, but it's to prevent full auto fire .
Q.
that was present?
An AR-15 bolt carrier
Later models actually I think
But from your inspection you were not able to tell whether
10
A.
The
11
Q.
Yeah.
12
examine that .
13
A.
I would have had to have disassembled the firearm, yes .
14
Q.
Did
15
before testifying here today?
16
A.
Yes, I did.
17
Q.
In the second test they used a, what they call a -- what
18
Officer Kingery call_ed a standard primered ammunition.
19
called the first test a hard primered ammunition.
20
the difference between the two?
21
A.
22
OC40
I wasn't allowed to touch the weapon.
Yes.
ramp, no.
And you would have had to have taken the gun apart to
yo~
review Officer Kingery's November 20th, 2006 report
And he
Do you know
Military primered is typically harder.

An AR-15
is an interesting firearm.
The firing pin
23
has no retaining spring on it to prevent the firing pin from
24
impacting the primer.
25
push back the firing pin .
It relies solely on the hard primer to
171
1466
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

04:'40
04:40
Q.
So, but can you explain just briefly what the difference
between a soft primered or a standard primered and a hard
primered ammunition is?
A.
When you say standard primer there's
Q.
Well, standard primer is what
THE COURT:
MR. FAHL:
THE COURT:
MR. FAHL:
I 04:41
You can't testify.
m sorry .
Ask another question.
Yes.
10
BY MR. FAHL:
11
Q.
12
ammunition and something that is -- has less of a hard primer to
13
it?
14
A.
15
primered anmunition is what they call lock time.
16
primer allows when the hunter pulls the trigger, that the firing
17
pin goes through it and it bangs into it, ignites the cartridge
18
a little quicker than a hard primer.
Can you tell me the difference between a hard primered
Soft primered ammunition?
Sure.
The reason for soft

The thinner
The reason for that is if something is 300 yards out
19
04:40
One second.
20
and if it even sneezes, the time period between the bullet
21
leaving the barrel and reaching its target is shortened.
22
Q.
Okay.
23
A.
Or from when you pull the trigger I should say.
24
Q.
Would a gun fire differently in the semi-automatic position,
25
the fire position, not the third position, the semi-automatic
172
1467
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

Witness : Max Kingery
position, if it's fired with soft primered ammunition?
A.
brand, make and model of ammunition -- Mr. Kingerys report
didn't denote -- he said brand but he didn't say what lot number
or what type.
04:42
04!42
CM:G
Yes.
Lock time would be increased.
And depending on what
If you were to put soft primered armrunition into an
AR-15 that was well worn, it could ignite just by chambering it,
just from what they call firing pin bounce.
Q.
And you noticed that, you said that Officer Kingery noted
10
hammer follow in the first test .
If you're using soft primered
11
ammunition in the semi-automatic firing position, does that
12
cause an additional problem?
13
A.
Say that one more time?
14
Q.
If you're using soft primered ammunition does the hammer
15
when you have a hanmter follow condition in the gun, a noted
16
hammer follow malfunction, does that have an effect on the soft
17
primered anununition if you're firing in either the
18
semi-automatic position or the fully automatic position?
19
A.
20
could injure you or kill you.
21
Q.
In which position?
22
A.
Certainly in that third unmarked position .
23
parts aren't there for automatic fire, and hammer follow could
24
result in what's called an out of battery ignition and it could
25
be catastrophic.
In that particular firearm I would be hesitant because it
Because all the
Literally the gun could blow up in your hands.
173
1468
RIF
Jury Trial - l/7/08
04:.u
114:.Q
Q.
If I told you that a firearm such as this one fired three
rounds of ammunition with one pull of the trigger and then
jammed, would that be consistent with hammer follow?
A.
and I would immediately cease firing and inspect internal
components.
Q.
situation, what would you do to remedy that situation?
A.
That would tell me that that firearm is broken and defective
And let's assume you determined you had a hammer follow
I could replace the selector, I could replace the internals,
10
there's a lot of things.
11
to prevent that from happening.
12
words.
13
Q.
14
or any particular rifle a machine gun?
15
A.
No.
16
MR. FAHL:
17
THE COURT:
18
I still plan to break at 5:00 o'clock.
Nothing further at this time.

Cross?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
20
BY MR. HAANSTAD:
21
Q.
22
your qualifications.
23
114:44
I would repair it, in other
In your opinion does the hammer follow condition render this
19
04:44
I could just modify those parts to try
Mr. Savage, defense counsel asked you some questions about

I
just wanted to touch on a few of those.
First of all, have you bad any formal training at all
24
in firearms classification?
25
A.
No, sir, I'm not law enforcement.
174
1469
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

Kingery
Wi~ness: Max
CM:G
OC4'
~smithing?
Q.
Have you had any trade schooling in
A.
No, not in gunsmithing.
machine, it's a simple machine.
Q.
But you had no trade schooling in gunsmithing, right?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
You've had no formal training with respect to federal
firearms laws, right?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Okay.
1Q
A.
Sorry.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
M-16 conversions, formal specialized training?
13
A.
No, sir, I have not gone to school for that.
14
Q.
And you don't have any formal training with respect to
15
firearms classifications, right?
16
A.
Again, I'm not in law enforcement.
17
Q.
So you've not received any training where they teach you how
18
to go through, examine a firearm and determine whether or not it
19
satisfies the federal statutory definition of a machine gun?
20
A.
I have had training .
You said any
21
training, now you're saying formal training.
Which is it?
22
Q.
It's formal training.
23
A.
I have not had any formal training.
24
school for that.
25
Q.
A gun is a
But my livelihood depends that I know that.
But that was a yes-or-no question, okay?
Have you had any specialized training in AR-15 to
I didn't say that.
Okay.
In machinery design.
I have not gone to
Now, you testified that you examined the Olympic Arms
175
1470
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

04:4'
firearm, Exhibit 1, right?
A.
Yes, I have.
Q.
And have you ever test fired it?
A.
No, I wouldn't want to.
Q.
Have you ever seen it test fired?
A.
I saw the video.
Q.
Okay.
A.
And as a matter of fact, the video shows that the guy who
was shooting it was so afraid to fire it from the shoulder he
10
had to hold it out in front of him.
11
dangerous.
12
Q.
13
that the defense team thinks that you should add, they'll have
14
an opportunity to come up and ask you guess after I do, okay?
So he knew it was
Sir, again, it was a yes-or-no question, and if there's more
So you've seen the video test fire; that's the only
114:41
16
time that you've seen that gun test fired.
17
A.
I saw a portion of it.
18
Q.
You saw a portion of it here in court today you mean.
19
A.
Yes, I did.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
whether or not that particular firearm would fire automatically?
22
A.
Could I testify whether it would?
23
Q.
Yes.
24
A.
I'll take the government's word that that gun's
25
malfunctioning.
Was that all of it?
And as you sit here right now can you testify as to
176
1471
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08

Q.
Well, I don't think that was the government's word.
A.
Well, the government said -- the government's video shows
that gun malfunctioning.
Q.
test fire it, and if you pulled the trigger once, would it fire
more than one round?
A.
I wouldn't do that after seeing that video.
Q.
Okay, but can you tell the jury whether or not you know if
that firearm would fire more than one round with one pull of the
Do you know right now if you took that gun and were able to
trigger right now?
oc:.
04:..
11
A.
I'm telling you specifically that gun is malfunctioning and
12
is broken.
13
Q.
14
trigger?
15
A.
16
one or
17
Q.
18
would that change your opinion as to whether or not this is a
19
machine gun?
20
A.
21
machine gun.
22
one trigger and both went off accidentally, is the
23
double-barrelled rifle according to your definition a machine
24
gun because it fired more than one
25
Q.
Do you know how many rounds it would fire if you pulled the
It wouldn't matter, it would still be broken whether it shot
so
or 100, it's still a defective firearm.
And if you pull the trigger once and it shot
so or
100,
No, it wouldn't because a malfunctioning firearm is not a

If you had a double-barreled rifle and you pulled
(Interrupting)
Okay, sir --
177
1472
RIF
Jury Trial - 1/7/08
0.C411
04:..
04:49
A.
-- function of the trigger?
Q.
Again, I'm asking questions, okay?
A.
Forgive me.
Q.
You
trigger once, and more than one round fired, if you determined
that in your head it was because it was malfunctioning you would
not classify that as a machine gun, right?
A.
No, because it's a defective firearm .
Q.
And according to what standard would you disqualify that as
~ay
that if you were to take that firearm, pull the
10
a machine gun?
11
A.
12
everybody in the industry and asked that everybody stop using
13
M-16
14
Q.
15
machine gun, right?
16
A.
17
design .
18
Q.
19
than one round, single function of a trigger without manual
20
reload?
21
A. . Shoots or is designed to shoot.
22
shoot more than one round per function of the trigger.
23
Q.
It says
24
A.
I don't have -- there's actually six separate definitions,
25
but the bottom line is that is not the frame or receiver of a
The ATF.
Where is the authority for that?

In 1986 they actually issued a safety warning to
parts in AR-15 rifles.

But youre familiar with the statutory definition of a
Yes, I am.
And it doesn't say by malfunction, it says by
That gun is not designed to fire full auto .
Doesn't it say any firearm that fires automatically more
11
or,
11
right?
That is not designed to
Shoots or is designed to shoot .
178
1473
RIF
Jury Trial - l/7/08
machine gun, that is not a machine gun, that is a malfunctioning
defective weapon.
Q.
having test fired it yourself .
A.
report and his second report -- and since they contradict each
other he's got a SO percent error rate going -- I would not fire
that firearm until I took it apart and repaired it.
And you're confident making that determination without ever
After viewing the video and viewing Agent Kingery's first
MR. HAANSTAD:
10
Your Honor.
MR. FAHL:
12
THE COURT:
13
(Witness excused at 4:50 p.m.)
14
THE COURT :
15
MR. FAHL:
16
THE COURT:
17
Redirect?
You may step down.
Does the defense have another witness?

No, Your Honor.
Very well.
Members of the jury, I will
Please do not discuss this case among yourselves or
19
allow anyone to discuss this matter with you.
20
open mind.
21
have a good evening.

(Jury
23
THE COURT :
25
Please keep an
Please leave your notebooks with the bailiff.
22
24
04:51
Nothing further.
see you here tomorrow at 9:00 o'clock.
18
04:50
I have nothing further at this time,
And
out at 4 :SO p.m.)

Please be seated.
Is the defense prepared
to rest?
MR. FAHL:
Yes, Your Honor.
179
1474
RIF
Page l of 9
1
1
2
3

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
vs.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

CONVERSION SYSTEM@
Defendant.
FILE NO.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
DEPOSITION OF
LENNIS F. SAVAGE, III
September 22, 2009
10:00 a . m.

Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Suite 600
(404) 581-6036
(404) 581-6181 (Facsimile)
Explosives
(404) 417-2696
(404) 417-2691 (Facsimile)
harry.fo s ter@atf.gov
On behal f of the Claimant:
Attorney at Law
1ttps://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm
1475
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 2 of93
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9640 Coleman Road

(678) 362-7650
(770) 552-9318 (Facsimile)
Also Present:
Explosives
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Article B.B. of the Rules and Regulations of the
of Georgia.)
LENNIS F. SAVAGE, III,
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. VISCOMI:
Q.
Good morning, Mr. Savage.
A.
Q.
Good morning.
As you know, I'm Jeff Viscomi. I'm with

the United States Attorney's Office, and were here
this morning for your deposition in the case of
United States versus one Historic Arms 54R caliber
conversion machinegun, as the case as captioned.
With me is Harry Foster from ATF and also
special assistant United States attorney for this
case along with Max Kingery from the Firearms
Technology Branch of ATF. Also in the room is
Historic Arms' attorney, John Monroe; the court
reporter and yourself.
I know you've heard this before, but j ust
so it's on the record, if you don't understand a
question, please ask me to repeat it or ask
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Mr. Foster when it's his turn. If you can't hear the
question, I'm happy to repeat it. If you do answer
the question as it's asked, the assumption will be
that you understood what the question was. Other
than that, I don't think you have a problem keeping
your voice up, but I ask that you make sure that you
give verbal answers as opposed to nodding or uh-huh
or uh-uh type of answers so that the court reporter
can get everything down. For the record, can you
state your name.
A.
Lennis Francis Savage, III.
Q.
How old are you, Mr. Savage?
A.
42.
Q.
A.
I do.
You live in Franklin, Georgia, c orrect?
Q.
You are the owner of Historic Arms; is
that correct?
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325619/text.htm
1476
RIF
10/21 /2009
Page 3 of93
18
19
20
A.
Q.
A.
21
Q.
Did you found Historic Arms?
22
23
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Yas.
24
25
I'm one of the owners.
Along with your wife?

Yes.
When did you found Historic Arms?

2000/2001; somewhere in there.
Could you describe for us what Historic
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Ar ms does?
A.
Desiqns firearms, firearms accessories ; we
do some production and some repair of not only GCA
firearms but NFA firearms.
Q.
I'm going to come back to you tell i ng us a
little bit more of what Historic Arms has d one. I

j ust ki nd of want to go background through your l ife,
i f you can bear with me. Prior to founding Hi s toric
Arms , what did you do?
A.
repair.
Industrial fabrication and equipment
12
Q.
Where did you do that?
13
A.
Q.
Several places.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
What was the last place you d id it be fore

you began with Hist oric Arms?
Winpak.
A.
Where is that?
Q.
A.
Senoia, Georgia .
Q.
What did you do for t hem specifi ca l l y?
A.
Repaired, desiqned , and manufactured or
fabricated equipment, and sometimes did some process
improvement on machines in the factory.
Q.
What kind of equipment?
A.
That was a plastics plant and textile
mill, I quess .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q.
So I guess you helped maintain and repa ir
all the equipment used to make the textiles and
plast ics?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
And sometimes desiqn and build equipment .
There was some overlap.
How long were you there?

I don't recall .
Did you s top working the re as soon as you

started His t oric Arms or was there some overlap?
A.
10
Q.
How l ong?
11
A.
Approximately a year, I believe .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q.
What d id you do before you wor ke d there?

MR. MONROE: By there, you mean -MR . VISCOMI: I can ' t remember t he name,
I ' m s orry .
MR. MONROE: Winpak?
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) Winpak, where did you
work before that ?
19
20
A.
A couple of different places doing the
same type of work ; Exxon Mobile in LaGrange, Georgia ,
doing the same thing.
21
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm 1477
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 4 of93
22
23
Q.
What kind of facilit y d id you work at for
Exxon Mobile ?
24
25
mill.
A.
Again, a manufacturing facility, text tile
1
2
Q.
The same type of work? Helping desi gn,
build, repair the equipment at the factory?
3
4
A.
In that particular place was -- my duties
were more geared towards maintenance.
Q.
Maintenance ? Okay . Going back to Winpak,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you said you helped design equi pment at the factory .

What sort of equipment did you desi gn?
A.
Mostly, the safety type equipment when
they would have an issue with everything; from
disposal of scrap to recycling plastics. Just
wherever they needed me.
I was a member of the
factory's, I guess, safety board, if you will.
Q.
Can you g ive us an example of a piece of
equipment you d esigned there?
A.
Yeah .
I designed a couple of different
ways of dealing with filter screen change-outs with
the machine that accelerated the process from a
two-hour process to about a 20-minute process thereby
saving downtime.
Q.
Did you design the machine that did this?
A.
Designed and built i t .
Q.
This machine, was thi s something that
lat er you built multiple ones for? Were they ever
sold or anything like that ?
A.
Actually, I have an agreement with Winpak.
8
1
2
3
4
I'm probably not supposed to discuss it, but I did

receive an award and also a cash award because i t
saved the company quite a bit of money and limited
liability towards injury to the other workers .
5
6
Q.
Now , prior to Winpak, you stated you
wo r ked at Exxon Mobile , correct?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
7hat and other places , yes .
Q.
Was Exxon Mobile the job you held
immediately prior to Winpak?
A.
Q.
Mobile?
I don't recall.
Do you recall how long you worked at Exxon
A.
Only about nine months. I didn't like the
swing shift.
Q.
You said you were responsible mainly for
ma intenance there?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Yes.
Maintenance of?
Plant equipment, machinery.
Do you recall where you worked prior to

Exxon Mobile?
A.
A couple of different companies. I've
worked out of a Millwright Hall, I guess. And before
that, I guess i t would be IMC Corporation .
Q.
Where is that?
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 5 of93
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
They're out of business, but they were, I
think, in A1pharetta .
Q.
A.
I was th equipment manager . I was in
charge of making sure the machinery was safe for the
operators, making sure it was well maintained,
supervised the mechanics, supervised the
subcontractors, traveled to the different job sites.
Things like that.
Q.
What kind of business was IMC?
A.
They were a construction company. They
had a lot of heavy equipment.
Q.
So you were helping to maintain that
equipment?
Yes.
A.
At that point with IMC , did you do any
Q.
designing or building of machines ?
No; primarily repair and maintenance.
A.
Q.
Where did you work prior to working at
IMC?
A.
Reynolds Service Corporation .
Q.
Where is that?
A.
Well, they're all over. I've worked for
them in Mississippi as well aa here in Georgia. I
want to say they're like on 138, Georgia Highway BS.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
I'm not familiar with where that is .
The
ci t y?
A.
I think it was Jonesboro or Riverdale .
Q.
Okay . What did you do with them?
A.
Same thing I did for IMC. I took care of
equipment, repaired i t . Sometimes I did design
machinery for them . If there was a case-specific
issue with a customer and they needed a piece of
equipment that wasn't available commercially, I would
fabricate it .
Q.
Are you talking about fabricating parts or
fabricating entire machines or both?
A.
Or modifying one with parts, but primarily
parts. Adapting a machine to a specific task.
Q.
How would you fabricate these specific
parts?
It would depend on the task at hand.
A.
Did you work with a lathe , for instance?
Q.
No, not there . I would have subcontracted
A.
that out .
What tools would you have conunonly worked
Q.
with?
A.
Hand tools, hand grinders, welder, drills,
things typical for, I guess, making something that
isn't designed to fit on a piece of equipment fit and
11
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325619/text.htm 1479
RIF
10/2 1/2009
Page 6 of93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
operate.
Q.
Are you currently familiar with how to

work with a lathe?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Now, at the time, it sounds like, and

correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you were not
familiar . You said you would subcontract that out,
correct?
No. I was familiar on how to operate the
A.
IMC just didn't have a lathe.
lathe.
Q.
I see. So you would have to send that out
somewhere?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, prior to working at IMC -- correct?
A.
That was RSC.
Q.
RSC, I'm sorry.
A.
Yeah, Reynolds Service Corporation .
Q.
Prior to Reynolds, where did you work?
That's Reynolds?
19
20
21
22
23
A.
Boy, I'm going back a few years. Gencorp,
I guess, in Beloit Manhattan.
Q.
Where was Gencorp?
A.
That would be Columbus, Mississippi.
Q.
Can you tell us what kind of work you did
24
at Gencorp?
25
A.
Industrial repair, maintenance of
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
machines, making of parts if they needed to be done.

They did have a machine shop.
So I would just use
the machines there. Not a great deal of time, not a
nice place to work; either one of them.
Q.
Prior to Gencorp?
A.
That would probably be Special Engineering
Services Company or SESCO.
Q.
Where was that?
A.
Detroit, Michigan.
Q.
A.
I was a journeyman machine builder.
Q.
Tell us about your duties at Special
Machines Services.
A.
Special Engineering Services Corporation.
15
16
Q.
Special Engineering Services Corporat i on ,
I'm sorry.
17
A.
SESCO,
Q.
SESCO.
A.
The engineers would give us a blueprint
and we would get weldments from subcontractors .
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
What are weldments?
A.
Very large metal stanchions, parts of
machines that require a cran to be moved. What we
would do there is primarily assemble and build coil
conversions systems, die feedrs primarily geared
13
1
2
3
toward the automobile industry .

Q.
So SESCO built equipment.
Was this
equipment used to build cars?
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325619/text.htm 1480
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 7 of93
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
We built the machines that built th cars.

Gotcha. Where did you work before SESCO?
A.
I think North Star Steel. I'm not crtain
you're going back quite a few years.
Q.
We're back pretty far here before SESCO?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Well, let's kind of flip it around and let
me ask you, what was the highest educational level
you've achieved?
A.
I have a high school diploma. I've taken
some college.
Q.
Where did you take college?
A.
Monroe Community College in Monroe,
Michigan.
Q.
Were you working while you were in
college?
A.
Yeah, here and there, odd jobs. I guess
to clarify, what we've discussed is definitely not
all inclusive. I've worked for a company or a store
called the Lock Shop in Columbus, Mississippi. Part
of that overlapped with Beloit Manhattan and Gencorp,
and there's a few others in there . So this isn't by
Q.
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any means all inclusive, but, anyway, I apologize.

Q.
That's fine. I understand.
A.
I don't have my CV in front of ma, and
sitting here, we're going back several years.
Q.
Sure. And the purpose is just to kind of
get some idea of what your background is pri or to
your involvement with Historic Arms. What is Beloit
Manhattan?
A.
Beloit Manhattan serviced the paper
industry, the rolls and the is machines that made
paper. We repaired the machines that repaired the
rolls and maintained them, I guess.
Q.
A.
Probably only about six months. It was a
pretty crappy place to work.
Q.
You've moved around a lot in your career?
A.
Oh, sure, sure.
Q.
Let's talk a little bit about firearms .
Is it fair to sa y that in your professi onal career
prior to Histori c Arms none of thes e jobs involved
you working with fi rearms in any way; i s that
correct?
A.
No; that's not correct.
Q.
Can you explain how?
A.
The Lock Shop was a combination locksmith
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
shop and firearms retail store.

Q.
What were your duties at the Lock Shop?
A.
To repair locks and to repair firearms.
Q.
Do you recall approximately when you
worked at the Lock Shop?
A.
When?
Year. You can obviously kind of give a
Q.
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325619/text.htm 1481
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 8 of93
8
9
10
11
12
13
guess, to the best of your knowledge. It doesn't

have to be specific if you don't know.
14
Was that the first place you worked you

were paid to work on firearms?
15
16
A.
recall the
Q.
A.
Q.
Early to mid-'90s.
exact date.
I don't know.
I don't
How long were you working there?

About a year-and-a-half.
21
A.
That was the first time i t was full time.
I worked for a place called Magnum Force/The Cop Shop
in Monroe, Michigan.
That's when I got my first
exposure to gunsmithing.
Q.
When was tha t?
A.
Late sos, early '90s .
22
23
Q.
there?
24
A.
How to repair firearms.
They had a
gentleman who worked there.
I knew how to phosphate
17
18
19
20
25
What exposure did you get to gunsmithing
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coat through some of the things of my other exposure

of jobs. So I would parkerize, if you will. It's a
phosphate coating process.
Q.
Prior to your job there in Monroe, you
said it was called Magnum Force ?

I think i t was Magnum Force.
A.
Q.
The Cop Shop?
A.
The Cop Shop, yeah.
Q.
It's the same place?
A.
Yeah, they were. Yeah, it's just half /2

sold uniforms and the other half sold firearms.
Q.
suppli es?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
firearms?
A.
I see .
So they sold law enforcement
Yes.
And then firearms?

Yes.
Prior to that, did you have interest in

Yes.
Q.
Can you tell me when y ou fi rst h a d
int e res t in firearms?
A.
As far back as I can remember.
I can tell
you that I did make my first gun from scratch in the
eighth grade. I got in little bit of trouble for i t
in shop class.
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q.
A.
keep it.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
You made a gun in shop class?

In the eighth grade, and actually got to
What kind of gun was it?

A . 22 Magnum zip gun.
You fabricated this in shop c l ass?

Absolutely.
From scratch?
A.
From scratch. Made the barrel by drilling

i t out on a drill press .
Q.
What kind of trouble did you g et into?
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 9 of93
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
A stern talking to, the sheriff's
department liaison officer confiscating the firearm,
contacting my parents, taken to the principal office
explaining why I made it. And whan they knew it
wasn't anything nefarious, they lat me keep it . I
also used to refinish firearms in shop class , My
uncles' shotguns, my grandfather's rifle, and things
like that.
Q.
You refinished those?
A.
It used to be legal. You could take a gun
to school.
Q.
What grade did you get in that class?
A.
A's.
Q.
So you would take these guns into school,
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
refinish them, and essentially -- renovate isn't the

correct word, but r estore them?
A.
And figure out how they worked.
Q.
Aside fr om the first gun you made, what
was t he first gun you owned?
A.
I guess that was the first one I owned . I
think it was a single-shot .22 .
Q.
As you continued through t he care er that
you discussed with me working in these indus trial
shops, I assume you continued to have an int erest in
guns ?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you tell us, I guess, in broad strokes
how you pursued that interest during that time period
before Historic Arms?
A.
Well, getting my hands on everything I
could get. If I couldn't afford it, I borrowed it to
examine it, look at it, and disassemble it. It's how
I figured out theories of operation on several
firearms; customizing. If I didn't like the stock,
I'd make a stock that I'd like batter. I just had
always been tinkering right along with gunsmithing as
a hobby, designing as a hobby and wanting to pursue
that deeper and further.
Q,
Did you purs ue any formal training related
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
to firearms?
A.
As far as?
Q.
Gunsmithing.
A.
Gunsmithing. I lookad into it.
Gunsmithing schools concentrate on repair and
customization . I tried to find a university that
taught design theory and found out that there ware
none in the United States. I'd have to travel to
Russia or a ComBlock country, so that kind of took
that off. So I had to read as much as I could with
the available publication and become self taught.
Q.
So you've never attended a gunsmithing
school?
A.
No .
Q.
I don 't know . Forgive my ignorance .
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325619/text.htm 1483
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 10of93
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Would you call a n armory school t he same thing?

that simi lar to gunsmithing schoo l?
Is
A.
Armorer schools taach assembly,
disassembly, maintenance, and simple repair . I was
already working on far more complicated machines . A
firearm is a ma c h ine . It's jus t a simpler machine .
It 's bigger than a pocket watch and smaller than a
VW, I've told p e ople before .
Machine s all opera te off the same
principals . You kn ow, a lot of the things you sea in
20
1
2
the industry can actually be found in a firearm;

magazines feeds, specifically.
3
4
5
Q.
So you didn't go to any armory schools
because you advanced beyond what you felt you could
learn in one of those schools?
6
7
8
A.
I wasn't interested in learning repair and
maintenance. I had already figured that out.
I just
didn't see anything to be gained by it.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
Now, by the way, I notice on some piece of
documentation that was given to me, and forgive me,
I'm not sure which one it was, you had received, for
lack of a better term, an honorable discharge from
the UAW; is that c orrect? Some sort of discharge?
23
24
25
A.
Q.
Oh, yeah; an honorable withdrawal.
Withdrawal.
That was the term .
When was
that?
A.
Q.
Whan I left SESCO.
Was that just a matter of you didn't want

to maintain your membership at that point? There was
no rea son?
A.
That was, you know, pretty much it.
I had
a disagreement with management there. We came to
terms and that was part of the terms. It just shows
that I did work as a journeyman machine builder, and
if I wanted to re-enter the UAW at any time, I could.
21
1
I left in good standing.
2
3
Q.
So you l e ft SESCO b ecause you were having
a di sagreement with management ?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A.
Oh, yes.
Q.
Can you tell me abou t i t?
A.
I can ' t even recall what it was over . I
mean, i t was silly .
Q.
Did you leave other jobs that you told me
about because of disagreement s with management or
empl oyees?
A.
If I wasn't happy, I left.
Q.
It sound like you l e f t a lot of jobs
relatively quickly -- six months , nine months -- from
what you've t o ld me.
A.
No place that I wanted to put in decades
of my life, I would just leave .
Q.
Now, I s e e on your CV you state that you
had perfo rmed research and development for -- a nd
then you list some license fir earms manufacturers.
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 11 of93
20
21
22
You list six of them. Not, of course, including

Historic Arms. The first one is RPB of Atlanta .
What did do you for RPB of Atlanta?
23
A.
That would have been a joint project.
That would be the 971 sport rifle.
24
25
Q.
What did you do on the 971 sport rifle ?
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I designed it.
Q.
Did you design it from scratch or was it a
derivative of an existing design?
A.
It was a combination of existing designs
using the best features from several.
Q.
Kind of a hybrid weapon, if you will?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was this put into manufacture by RPB?
A.
RPS and I believe Masterpiece Arms .
Q.
That's the next company on the list,
Masterpiece Arms . Is that also in reference to the
971 sport rifle ?
A.
It is .
Q.
Did you design anything else with
Masterpiece Arms?
A.
Not specifically for them where Historic
Arms was paid.
Q.
Did you design something that was somehow
picked up by Masterpiece Arms? You said not
specifically for t hem . Was there something that they
later picked up?
A.
Well, in the development of the 971 sports
rifle -- I guess, what's the bast way to term this
we found a frailty or a fault .
It was discovered
that the firing pin design in their MAC series of
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
closed-bolt semi-automatic firearms had soma issues.

And because of that, they went to a new round firing
pin design similar to the AR-15 .
Q.
What was your involvement in that change?
A.
Working with their senior
they had a
design engineer at the time. I know his first name
is Scott.
I can't recall his last name . But iasues
with the failure to fire or failure to eject, and i t
was found through working on the 971 sport rifle,
because i t used a MAC-type upper and was using their
off-the-shelf components, there was a weakness there
that was addressed.
Q.
Did you play a part in identifying the
wea kness or in resolving it?

A.
Probably a little bit of both.
Q.
That's fair. Is that the extent of your
work with Masterpiece Arms?
A.
I contracted them to build some
subcomponents for me after that point in time, but
that's pretty much it.
Q.
Was that prior to Historic Arms or after
Historic Arms?
A.
No; that's after .
That's for Historic
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 12 of93
24
25
Arms.
Q.
Your work with RPB, was that also before
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or after Historic Arms?

A.
No. That's after Historic Arms.
Q.
What about Century International Arms,
what did you do with them?
A.
I sold them the design of two rifles. The
RPO semi-automatic and the SGHB and also later built
them a prototype for the SG-43 semi-automatic .
Q.
And kind of the same question I asked you
earlier, the SGMB and the RPO semi-automatic, were
those original designs? Hybrid designs? Derivative
designs? How would you -A.
They were certainly original designs, but
they were based on -- what they were was a
semi-automatic version of a historic machinequn.
Q.
I see . Let me set off this baseline . One
of the prior people deposed from your side, if you
will, said that every gun design is based on another
gun design. Do you believe that to be true? I
believe that was Mr. Harding.
A.
Yeah, that's probably true, yeah. There
may be some instances where that's not. But for the
most part, we're rehashing old ground. The system
that is in current firearms that is a brass cartridge
powder and bullet and how they work, is 100-year-old
technology.
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
So when I ask you if it's an original
design or a hybrid, that's what I'm essentially
asking you. I guess when I say original, I meant is
it s ome thing you just brought up from square one
fr om, you know, the first part of the design process
or is it based on some other either historic or more
recent firearm?
I just wanted to set that out so I'm not
confusing you with the terms I'm using because I'm
certainly not using terms in any sort of industry
way; not necessarily, at least.
Let me go down to Ohio Ordinance Works,
what did you do with them?
A.
I designed the first semi-automatic MAG 58
and US M240 and sold them the rights and the design.
Q.
Was that part of your Historic Arms work
or was that prior to that?
A.
No . That was part of Historic Arms.
Q.
You have Calico Light Weapons Systems and
Ohio Rapid Fire, your work with them was in your time
with Historic Arms?
Yes.
A.
Q.
Did you do anything else for Ohio
Ordinance Works?
A.
No .
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 13 of93
26
1
2
3
Q.
Let's go down to Calico Light Weapons
Systems, what did you do with them?
A.
Q.
I designed the Calico MAC upper.
A.
All of it.
Q.
So you designed that from the ground up?
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think I've definitely discussed that

d evice wi th you before. What can you tell me in
terms of what design work you did on it ?
A.
Yeah; to utilize -- what it is is it's an
upper for the MAC series of machinegun that allows
the MAC series machinequn to use the Calico helical
feed magazine.
Q.
So your design wo rk was marrying the
Calico ammunition feeding system to the MAC upper?
A.
Exactly. It was hybridization of a Calico
firearm to be used with the MAC series of firearms .
Q.
Highway Rapid Fire, what did you d o with
them?
A.
A couple of small projects. Currently, I
have one going. They're refining their design of the
RPO semi. One different than what I had designed .
Q.
What's your invol vement in that?
A.
Producing or assambling. They've got the
receiver, which is very similar to mine , but the fire
control systQlll on i t .
27
1
2
3
4
5
Q.
Now, when you do this kind of work, and as
you sa i d everything was done thr ough Historic Arms ,
d oes His t oric Arms ever manufacture these items for
mass consump tion or does Historic Arms just basically
ma nufacture prototype?
A.
With respect to?
Q.
Let ' s say with Calico .
A.
Primarily , the research and development, I
have and can and do production, but that's not the
thrust of our business model.
Q.
So is it fair to say that most of the
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
items you produce that a r e in conjunction with

ano ther company like RPB or Masterpiece , the idea is
that they would mass produce those?
A.
I would find out how to make it work,
present a functional prototype, and then work with
their angineers if there's any technical issues .
But, yes, they would do the manufacturing .
Q.
Has Historic Arms ever done mass
manuf a c t uring?
A.
I don't understand what you mean by mass
manufacturing.
Q.
Has Historic Arms ever manuf actur e d - - and
I guess it could be ten, it could be a hundr ed, it

could be a t h ousand copies of t heir own d esign -- for
28
1
reta i l s al e?
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 14 of93
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Yes.
Q.
What items are those?
A.
The BREN semi-automatic, several of the
Calico uppers, and several other thinqs. Mainly
component parts, I guess.
Q.
How have you sold them?
Arms sold them?
How has Historic
A.
Well, if it's a GCA firearm, it's either a
transfer to another FFL.
If it's an NFA item,
typically it's to another person . And if it's an
unregulated item, i t could be straiqht-out retail
sale. But primarily towards the industry, towards
other FFA holders, so they could sell something at a
profit .
Q.
Does Historic Arms ever sell items
directly through a website or some other method of

direct sales?
A.
I have made some direct sales, but we
don't have a website and we don't market for retail
sales.
I'm not really interested in it.
Q.
What is the Gunzilla Project?
A.
The Gunzilla Project, i t is a dual
parallel system composed of two 971 sport rifles laid
out on a horizontal plane mirror imaginq one another
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
with a common shaft running a set of cams. So it's

very similar to a Gatling gun. For every one full
revolution of the hand crank, you will get four shots
and i t would alternate left qun/right gun/left gun
right gun.
It held a total of 140 rounds, had four
fake barrels so that i t looked like a Gatlinq gun.
7
8
Q.
Was that design in conjunction with
another manufacturer?
9
10
12
A.
retailer .
Q.
A.
13
14
15
Q.
I mean, as opposed to they weren't taken
on a show ci r cuit or something like that? Or were
they a novel t y item?
16
17
item.
18
19
20
Q.
What about the MAG 58 semi-automat ic?
That's another item listed on your CV as something
that you' ve designed, a firearm?
11
21
22
23
24
25
A.
No.
I made up a couple of those for a
So they were sold?

I believe so.
No, no.
They were definitely a novelty
A.
Yes.
Q.
That was designed by Hist oric Arms?
A.
Yes.
Q.
question.
That's a firearm under the GCA .

.
For what purpose? Let me rephrase that

Was it designed in conjunction with a
30
1
2
3
4
manufacturer?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Yes.
Which manufacturer?
Ohio Ordinance.
Can you tell me about how that -- what is
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 15of93
6
that based off the , MAG 58sa , semi-automatic?
A.
It's based off the MAG 58 made by AFN or
tha US M240.
It's a current issued weapon in our
military, the . 308 belt-feed.
In our military, it's
a machinegun under the NFA. And the guns were
selling for a quarter of a million dollars a pop if
thay were transfarrable . And I knew that a
semi-automatic variant of that would be very
desirable to people who couldn't afford the inflated
price of a full auto.
I had talked with a couple of different
larger manufacturers, tossed i t over with them, what
they'd think about it, and if I could produce i t
would they be interested in buying the idea and tha
prototype .
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
conversion
A.
Q.
A.
What about the Ballou belt-fed caliber

unit , who was that designed with?
That was not designed with.
I ' m sorry , designed for .

It was not designed for anybody other than
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for Historic Arms .

Q.
Is that for use in an automatic or
semi-automatic device?
A.
That was an upper designed for the MAC
series of machinegun that allowed tha use of 7 . 62X54R
halted ammunition . It was submitted to Tech Branch .
It was given a verbal approval.
It was sent back to
Historic Arms, taken to the Creek, and demo'd. Then
I think six or nina months later, I was told over the
phone by Chief Sterling Nixon that they had changed
their mind.
And as I was calling, Where's my paper,
where's my paper . I needed a latter from them giving
me a disposition , h e told me that he considered i t a
machinegun. And s o i t never we nt into production
past beyond pro totype.
Q.
It s ounds, fr om what you described, ver y
similar t o the d efendant in this case .

A.
There were some similariti es. The major
distinction in the design was that the Ballou
belt-fed was manufactured using destroyed fragments
of a machinequn . And i t also fired off the same
belt, same ammunition, was far larger, and far
heavier. And, well, that's the major differences, I
guess.
32
1
2
Q.
So the major difference is that the
components were sourced from a different place?
3
4
5
A.
Different weapons.
Q.
Different weapons system?
A.
Q.
Did it fire from an open bolt?
A.
Q.
They didn't fire at all.
8
9
I won't go any further than that . I'm

going to let my colleague handle anything further on
RIF 10/21 /2009
Page 16 of93
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
that issue. What's the ZB-37 s emi-automatic?

A.
A SQllli-automatic variant of the ZB-37
Of all these designs we've discussed, have

you ever designed anything specifically in mind f or
military application?
24
25
A.
I ' ve been hopeful, and i t could be part of
it, but it's never been the entire thrust.
machinegun.
Q.
Then t he l ast t hing list ed is the
54R/ MAC-type calibe r conve rsi on syst em. Is that th e
defendant?
A.
Yes .
Q.
You've made a number of designs that are
s emi-automatic variant s of automatic weapons; is that
c orrect?
A.
Yes.
Q.
33
1
2
Q.
The thrus t ha s genera lly been s ome thi ng
for the public at lar ge , correct?
3
4
5
6
A.
I don't know that that's correct. The
problem is I'm not a qualified military contractor,
and that's a whole game I'm not familiar with and
it's a boy's club I'm not part of, so.
Q.
You've never s e rved in the mi l itary ,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
c orrect ?
A.
No .
Q.
Your CV list s s ever al ca ses t hat you state
you were a t echni cal a dvisor or e xpe r t wit ne s s , a nd I
jus t kind o f want to go over t hese with you . The
fir st one is U. S . v. Glove r f r om Charl otte , No r th
Carolina. What was your role in that case?
A.
I was a technical advisor.
I went out and
did an independent evaluation and test as well as
witnessed the ATF test of the firearm involved in
that case .
Q.
What was the firearm involved in that
case?
A.
Q.
An FNFAL .
Do you recall what the issue was in tha t
case?
A.
Tha ATF claimed i t was a machinegun. Upon
inspection of the firearm, i t was found out that
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
thare was a failed firing pin return spring. Whan

softer primer ammo was put into magazine and fired
out of the gun and the safety was manipulated, i t
would string fire .
Q.
What does that mean, string f ire ?
A.
It has to do with hammer follow-through.
If the disconnecter in a semi-automatic firearm fails
mechanically, or otherwise through manipulation, and
the hammer follows the bolt home into battery, that
is, after it's stripped a round of ammunition,
chambered i t closed and locked; the hammer is
following behind .
If there's enough energy with the hammer
RIF 10/2112009
Page 17of93
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
following behind to sufficiently dump the primer, it

will ignite it causing it to discharge, which means
just chambering a round. It could go off and it's a
malfunction of where every time the hammer will
follow the bolt home, the gun will discharge; very
dangerous .
Q.
In Glover, is it correct that the
Government was saying this was a machinegun, correct,
the i tem?
A.
That's right.
Q.
This was a criminal case?
A.
Yes.
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
You came in as a technical advisor, and
what was your conclusion?
A.
The gun was malfunctioning due to a broken
return spring on the firing pin .
Q.
And that it was not a machinegun?
A.
That it was not a machinegun . It did not
have specific features and characteristics that were
designed to make it fire full auto .
Q.
Did you, in fact, testify in that case?
A.
No.
Q.
Why not?
A.
The charges were dismissed after the U.S.
attorney viewed the videotape that recorded that
day's events of the ATF's test and our examination.
Q.
The ATF test, if you recall, was it an FTB
test or it was a test held by some other part of it?
A.
It was an FTB test .
Q.
Was it held at FTB?
A.
No.
Where was it held?

At the sheriff's range in that area .
Q.
Was there a firearms enforcement office r
or FEO invol ved in that test?
A.
Wall, I'm not sure. He identified himself
as being from FTB, but it was later discovered he
Q.
A.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
worked in imports.
Q.
Do you r ecall his name?
A.
Agent Kooney, Michael J . Kooney.
Q.
The next cas e you l ist i s U.S. v. Wren .
Wha t was your involvement in that case?
A.
I, again, was present at the field test.
The case originally had to do with a semi-automatic
Maxim that FTB contended was a machinegun. In all
the testing that we did, we never could get it to
fire full auto . And then Wren was reindicted on a
MAC upper based on the RPD feed system, and he went
to trial on that. That was at the same time I had an
FTB approval for nearly an identical device .
Q.
Now, you said you we r e involved in some
t esti ng in the Wren case?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you test the device at issue? There
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm 1491
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 18 of9;
18
19
were t wo de v i c es , correct?
A.
Q.
There were two.
20
21
22
The first device was the -- I'm sorry,

which one was it?
A.
Well, i t was a 7 . 62X39 belt-feed
23
conversion for the MAC 11. The second device was a

. 223 feed device for the MAC 11, and I think the
MAC llAl. Evan though I asked counsel in that to do
24
25
37
1
2
a test fire, for whatever reason I, was never

afforded the opportunity .
3
4
Q.
So the first device you were n eve r
afforded an opportunity to test fire it?
5
6
A.
Are we talking about the Maxims or are we
talking about the caliber conversion devices?
Q.
The first device, I think it was the
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
caliber conversion device; is that corre ct?

A.
Like I said , it's confusing because ha
kept getting re-indicted . The first and the one that
I tested not once but twice was the semi-automatic
Maxims .
Q.
That was the gun tha t sounds similar to
Glover in the sense that your c ontention was that it

was malfunctioning?
19
A.
No. My contention is i t didn't fire full
auto.
It wasn't from lacking of trying. It never
did fire full auto . We never could replicate even a
malfunction of i t going full auto.
20
21
Q.
And yet that particular item, when the ATF
tes t ed it, it did fire full auto?
17
18
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
Well, that's what was claimed.
A.
Correct .
So your testing was an indepe ndent test of

what AT F did, correct?
39
1
2
Q.
What about the caliber conversion system,
what was your involvement with that in the Wren case?
3
4
5
6
A.
I was allowed to examine the evidence
involved, review the report of examination from FTB,
and I was there to advise his counsel on the
technical aspects of what was being discussed.
Q.
Now, was this caliber conversion system at
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
all similar to the defendant in thi s case?

A.
No. Actually, similar, I guess, in a way
that i t was a caliber conversion system. It was
s i milar to -- well, i t was nearly identical to a
previous device I had designed .
Q.
Which one is that?
A.
That would be the BM-3000.
Q.
Okay . So in either portion of the Wren
case, did you testify in court?

A.
No . And the reason is Wren's attorney
never submitted my CV to the court.
Q.
So you were prohibited from testifying?
A.
Because he never submitted my CV to the
court.
https ://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325 619/text.htm 1492
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 19 of9~
22
23
24
25
Q.
Bu t your position in that case was that
the ATF had come to the wrong conclusion, correct?
A.
Q.
Correct.
Now, what about U.S . v. Kwan, what was
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
your involvement in t hat ca se?

A.
I was a technical advisor and expert
witness, and I did testify in that case.
Q.
What was that case about?
A.
About a DCM-type M14 semi-automatic rifle
and a VP70Z with a VP70M butt stock attached to it.
So the two charges in that case were possession of an
unregistered machinegun and possession of a
unregistered short-barreled rifle .
Q.
You testified in that case as an expert
witness ; is that correct?
A.
That is correct.
Q.
You were qualif ied as an e xpert?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What did you d o as an e xpert to prepare
for your testimony?
17
A.
I don't understand your question.
18
Q.
Did you examine the device or devices?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I was afforded the opportunity to examine
the device.
Q.
A.
There ' s two at i ssue here , correct ?
Yes. So both of them, I did examine the

devices.
I reviewed the report of examination from
FTB and also did a good deal of research due to some
of the arcane issues here having to do with M14
40
1
2
3
4
semis .
Q.
Base on your examination in that case , di d

you produce a written report?
A.
I don't recall.
5
6
Q.
You said you were qualified as an expert
to testify?
7
8
A.
I don't recall.
It's been several years ,
I'm sorry.
Q.
Your conclusion after your examination of
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the two items in question , the Kwan case , did your

conclus i on d iffer from that of the ATF?
A.
Yes .
Q.
How did it differ?
A.
The ATF asserted that the M14 at issue was
a machinegun. And as presented at trial, i t was, but
their report showed that hay had machined the
receiver, changed out parts, and had altered a
semi-automatic into a machinegun.
With respect to the VP70 Zulu or Z, i t was
imported lawfully with a stock attachment point .
There are several other firearms that are cur rently
on the market tha t have that, and that the ATF had,
in fact, assembled the short-barrel and not Mr. Kwan.
The reason for that is that Mr . Kwan did
lawfully possess a VP70M or machi negun version that
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 20 of93
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required the stock, so he had a lawful purpose for

it.
Q.
The first firearm you tested in the Kwan
case, you said that ATF machined the parts to modify
it; is that correct?
A.
No. I didn't test the firearm in Kwan.
That's how you started off your question. I examine
it.
Q.
You examined it?
A.
Right. Yes.
Q.
But your testimony just a few minutes ago
is that you had, I think you said, machined the parts
inside of that device?
A.
Yes. They had machined off some welds.
Their testimony was that.
Q.
So that's based on their testimony?
A.
And physical evidence, yes.
Q.
When you say physical evidence, are you
A.
I could see where they cut the welds.
Q.
So your examination?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right. Now, the next case listed was
United States v. Olofson in Milwaukee. What did that
case involve?
A.
That involved Mr. Kingery who is across
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the table from me.

Q.
I'm talking more about what was
Mr. Olofson accused of doing?
A.
He was accused of unlawfully transferring
a machinegun.
Q.
What was your involvement in that case?
A.
As a technical advisor and then later as
an expert witness at trial.
Q.
What kind of gun was it?
A.
It was an AR-15 manufactured by Olympic
Arms of Washington and the situation was nearly
identical to Glover except a different firearm
system.
Q.
So if the situation was identical, then I
assume that the situation was that your position was
that parts -- that there was a mechanical failure; is
that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So your position was that the AR-15 was
not a machinegun?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Because it was mechanical failure?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, you just said that Olofson involved
Mr. Kingery?
43
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.corn/myfiles/325619/text.htm 1494
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 21 of93
1
A.
That is correct.
Q.
How so ?
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
He was the FEO who had completed both
reports of examination.
If I remember correctly, I
think i t was October of that year, he had examined
the firearm, noted the same situation with the
failure -- i t could happen with manipulation with the
safety -- tested the firearm, found i t not to be a
machinegun.
Than 30 days later, retested the firearm
utilizing a different type of ammunition, and thn
with no material change to the firearm, i t was
determined by Mr. Kingery to be a machinegun.
Q.
You disagreed with that determination?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Why?
A.
Q.
Because it's incorrect.
Why is it incorrect? I ' m not trying to

attack your conclusion . I just want to get to your
thinking , so .
A.
The methodology of the selective use of
ammunition, based on sensitivity of the primer, could
make practically any firearm malfunction and go and
fire off more than one shot per function of the
trigger.
I guess I ' l l try to phrase this right.
Thar is a distinct history with the
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AR-15-type rifle having issues of that malfunction

due to the fact that the AR-15 does not have a firing
pin return spring, which means depending on the
materials used to manufacture the firing pin, the
greater the mass of the firing pin, the greater the
chances of a malfunction.
And than there is, of course, court
history in U . S. v . Staples of the same type of
malfunction, same type of situation, and there's also
ATF documents that declare the use of M16 parts and
AR-15 receivers, but the ATF policy was that because
manufacturers had unknowingly used M16 parts in the
manufacture of AR-15s, they did not follow the policy
of affording an opportunity for the individual to
divest themselves of the offensive parts in question.
Q.
Now, your discussion mentioned the use of
soft-primered ammo; is that correct?

A.
I don't think that was the term.
That's
what I used at trial, but, yeah, that's the bast way
to
Q.
What is that?
A.
Military grade primers are typically
harder just due to the rigors of military use.
Commercial grade primers may or may not be softer .
It depends on whatever they've got, who they have
45
1
2
3
them, how thick the metal was when the primer cup was
punched out .
Some are designed thinner purposely for
faster lock time .
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm
1495
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 22 of93
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
I don't want to get too far off your CV.
I'm just trying to understand the soft part of the
ammo. Is that something that if I go to the store to
buy ammunition, there's a box marked soft primers or
is it just a matter of kind of a hit or miss with the
grade you happen to buy?
A.
It depends on the manufacturer . I have
seen boxes of ammunition that wera designed
specifically for bolt action rifles that have
warnings printed on it, Not for use for
semi-automatic.
It's fairly rare. There's very little
distinction, and typically you have to look i t up
online or contact the manufacturer, but i t is wall
known especially with the AR-15 that you want to use
mill spec ammo in i t just due to the proclivities of
the weapon's design with the free-floating firing pin
in it.
Q.
And your contention in Olofson was that
what FTB and specifically FEO Kingery did was he

intentionally used soft-primered ammo to get the
result he wanted ; is that correct ? Is that what
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
you -A.
I don't think that was his intention.
If
I remember the ROis, he was specifically asked to do
that by the local agent. I just find i t disturbing
that they chose a pattern that if FTB doesn't get the
results i t wants, i t retests and reclassifies until
i t gets the results it wants.
Q.
It sounds to, me from the way you've
described it, that any person could get so-called

soft-primered ammo either intentionally or
unintentionally to use a weapon like this?
18
A.
It happens at competitive shoots all the
time that they're using softer primered ammo or
thinner walled primared ammo for faster lock times.
Camp Herring has issues all the time and has
gunsmiths right there, because many times during a
competition, somebody's gun would go full auto .
Q.
Because they were using soft-primered
19
ammo?
20
21
24
A.
That would be one of the reasons. It
could be a worn sear.
It could be that they had
taken the amount of pressure required to depress the
trigger.
Q.
What did your examination of the AR- 15 in
25
Olofson consist of?
13
14
15
16
17
22
23
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A.
It didn't.
I was forbidden by the court
from examining the AR-15. Max here was able to go
through a functional check for ma while I observed.
He was able to open up and split the upper from the
lower on the weapon and allowed ma to observe. And
for whatever reason, the court agreed with the U.S.
attorney at the time, and I was forbidden from even
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 23 of93
8
9
10
11
12
13
touchinq the weapon.

Q.
Could that be because it was evidence in a
criminal case?
A.
But I've examined other evidence in
criminal cases.
14
Q.
Olofson?
15
16
17
18
A.
I believe so. And I believe I could only
base i t and critique i t on FTB's report of
examination and give dichotic answers. One, it's not
a machine; and the other one, it is.
19
20
Q.
So now, granted I'm a layperson and I
don't have any specialized firearms knowledge, so
you'll forgive me if this question is not phrased
techn ically correct.
With respect t o the gun in Olofson, it
seems to me that if it fired automatically with
commercially available ammo, be it soft primered or
21
22
23
24
25
Did you repair a written report in
48
1
2
not, that it's a machinegun .

it wasn't a machinegun?
3
4
5
6
A.
I'll quote from my testimony. If I take
my qranddaddy's double-barrel out and I pull one
triqger and both barrels qo off due to a malfunction,
is that a machinegun?
Q.
So was it in Olofson, then, your
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
How did you determine
contention that it was n ot just the use o f

soft-primered ammo that was responsible for the
automatic firing?
A.
Q.
A.
That is correct.
It was something beyond that?

Yes.
Can we take a break?
MR. VISCOMI: Do you need a break?

THE WITNESS: Please.
MR. VISCOMI: Let's take five minutes .
MR. MONROE: Let's take ten minutes .
(Recess from 11:06 a.m. to 11:26 a . m.)
identification . )
Q.
(By Mr. Viscorni) We're back from a break.
Mr. Savage, you're still under oath. I do want to
show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
A.
I believe this is my CV . It looks to be
complate.
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q.
Okay . So your CV is Plaintiff's 1. I
just wanted to put that on the record before I
forget. All right. We were discussing the case of
U.S. v. Olofson when we went to break. I just want
to kind of wrap up with a few quest i ons on that .
Now, before we went to break, you had said
that, and I'm paraphrasing, your testimony was that
it did not fire automatically solely because of the
soft-primered ammo, but it was also, you said, a
malfunction with the parts in the gun, correct?
A.
Correct .
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm
1497
RIF
10/2112009
Page 24 of93
12
13
14
15
16
Q.
Were you able to ascertain what the nature
of that malfunction was?
17
18
A.
thinqs.
19
Q.
Now, were you aware in Olofson that it was
the testimony of the ATF agent
I'm not referring
to Mr. Kingery. I believe it was the special agent
assigned to the case -- that there were intentional
modifications made in terms of the parts put into the
AR-15 in question?
MR. MONROE: Are you asking if he was
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I couldn't verify it. I could only have
an educated guess or a hypothesis as to why.
Q.
As to why the parts failed?

Yes; because i t was a combination of
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
aware of it during the case or now?

Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) During the case when you
came to your conclusion as an expert witness.
A.
Well, that would have been after my
conclusion, but I do believe I recall her testimony
being along those lines that she said i t was
intentional.
Q.
At the same time when you were actively
participating in the case, were you aware that
Mr . Olofson had said to the person he loaned the gun
to that he knew it fired automati cally?
A.
I don't think ha used the words
automatically. I don't think the witness did. The
problem is is that firing something automatic doesn't
necessarily mean i t fires as a machinegun. A lot of
people superimpose the term automatic with auto
loading. You know, what kind of handgun do you have.
Is i t a resolver or an automatic.
They don't mean do you own a machinequn or
a revolver.
Thay mean do you have an auto-loading
firearm.
So given the testimony of the witness, I
think you're referring to Kernaki.
Q.
I believe it was the young man who the gun
was loaned to?
A.
Yeah .
He fired some 800 rounds and then
51
1
started manipulating the safety .
2
3
4
Q.
Well, didn't that gun have a selector
switch with a blank position where typically an Ml6
would have an automatic?
5
6
7
8
9
10
A.
Many AR-15s have that and many FALs have
that .
It doesn't mean that they're a machinegun .
It's because they have a selector that will go into
an unmarked position. It will actually induce a
malfunction the same of which would be the
disconnecter spring breaking.
11
12
Q.
Now, were all these conclusions in the
written r eport you submitted in Olofson?
13
A.
I don't recall.
14
Q.
But you did submit a written r e port ?
15
A.
I believe so.
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 25 of93
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
You believe so.
of the Ol ofson case?
A.
Q.
A.
Do you know the outcome
Yes, I do .
He was convi c ted, correct?

Correct.
Q.
Well, you have one other case listed and
then two other cases. The last one in this one
section is U.S. v. Friesen, and that involved a Sten
machinegun, correct?
A.
Co rrect.
52
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
What was your involvement in that case ?
A.
I was a technical advisor and expert
witness in that case.
Q.
Did you testify in that case?
A.
Yes, I did.
Q.
What did you testify i n regards to?
A.
In regards to the markings en the subject
firearm, and I believe I also testified on some
inaccuracies having to do with the NFRTR that I
experienced as a manufacturer . That's not all
inclusive, but I seem to remember that.
Q.
So you testified both with respect t o t ool
marks, co rrect ?
A.
correct.
Q.
The application cf the serial number,
NFRTR is the registrati on database for

guns, c orrect ?
A.
Q.
A.
ATF's bound book, if you will.
It's what b ook?

ATF' s bound book, if you will .
Q.
So i n Fries en you were qualified as an
e xpert, correct?
A.
Q.
Correct .
But you r qualification was not with

respect to the fun ction of firearms?
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A.
Oh, actually, that ' s incorrect . I believe
i t would be in firearms in general . The Friesen case
was not whether or not the subject firearm was a
machinegun. That was not at issue. Both parties
agreed that i t was a machinegun .
Q.
So the issue was about the serial number
on the gun?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Specifically what about the serial number ?
A.
It was crude. The ATF asserted that the
serial number was applied by Mr. Friesen because i t
was so crude, but the fact of the matter was that the
manufacturer at the time was trying to beat the
registry data line of May 19, 1986 and was mass
producing receivers, morning, noon, and night and was
marking them nilly-willy, if you will, and as fast as
you could .
So none of the firearms on that particular
Form 2 from that manufacturer used the same font or
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm 1499
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 26 of93
20
21
22
23
24
25
same size or were marked in the same location.
So your conclusion in Friesen was

Q.
different than the ATF's conclusion?
A.
Yes.
So your conclusion in all the five cases

that we've discussed -- Glover, Wren, Kwan, Olofson,
Q.
54
1
2
and Friesen -- your conclus ion was always the

opposite of what the ATF had concluded, correct?
A.
I don't know about the opposite, but --
Q.
Well , you were in disagr eement with the
A.
Q.
Correct.
10
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
In Dilon, Montana?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A.
Correct .
Q.
What was your consulting role in Harris?
5
6
ATF?
Two other cases y ou list as having been a

firearms consultant : U.S. v . Harris , which was here
in Atlanta ; and U. S . v. Celeta KTOrdinance .
8
9
22
23
24
25
A.
I had brought the defense counsel up to
speed on some of the technical meanings and terms .
Q.
You did not tes tify in that case?
A.
No, I did not.
Q.
You were not a p otential expert?
A.
I was a potential expert .
Q.
Did you prepare a report?
No.
A.
Q.
What about Celeta?
A.
Strictly consulting their attorneys so
that they could understand the technical issues.
Q.
What was Harris about?
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.
It was about a cut up Thompson, I believe.
It's been a few years, but I believe i t had to do
with a Thompson that was cut up via torch, and I
believe the ATF maintained that i t was readily
restorable.
Q.
What about Celeta?
A.
It had to do with an AR-15.
I guess the
ATF maintained that the product that Mr. Celeta was
producing was a firearm under the GCA. He was
attQlllpting to supply homebuilders with the parts and
components that were just to the negative side of
being a GCA receiver so that they could make their
own firearm and have a sense of accomplishment .
Q.
I want to jump back real q uick to one
other thing. We discussed well before the brea k,

before we got to the court cases, these various
firearms or firearms s ystems t hat you d esigned o r
Historic Arms designed .
Of those , can you tell me which of t hose
went into large-scale production? Mea ni ng, you know,
multiple, tens , or hundreds of cop ies were built?
A.
The 971 sport rifle, I know that at least
550 were produced.
RIF 10/21/2009
Page 27 of93
o.
24
25
A.
That was your design that was produced?

Yeah; WQll, yeah. I mean, again, it was a
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
joint project with MasterpiQce, RPB of Atlanta, and I

believe Hit & Run Guns. But, yes, that went into
production. The BREN semi-automatic, I had been
producing since, I believe, 2002. I would guess a
couple of hundrQd, maybe 300 . I don't make a wholQ
lot of tham; time consuming. The SG-43
semi-automatic, I know that hundreds ware made or are
currently in production by Century Arms and their
subcontractors.
Q.
They're using the Historic Arms' design?
A.
Yes. The MAG 58 sami was refined and
changed from what I had designed, but Ohio Ordinance
modified what I gave them, actually improved it, and
it's still currently in production. I don't have
production numbers on that, but I would certainly say
it's ovQr a hundred.
Q.
The MAC 58, you said they improved it. Is
what they're producing currently, is it a build off
of the Historic Arms' design?
A.
Yes, it was an improvement of Historic
Arms. They bought my design and then improved it.
Q.
So it's derived from, if you will?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What else .
A.
May I?
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Yes, of course. This is not a memory

(Tenders document.)
A.
The Calico MAC Conversion System is also
currently in production, and I believe several
hundreds of them produced. RPO, I believe we
producQd 50 or 60. Century purchased the rights. I
don't know wherQ they're at on production. The BREN
belt-feds, those were very few. I would say that
there was probably under ten of them ever built . The
Gunzilla Project, again, a very, very narrow market .
I think two or three because nobody would pay the
money it took to build one.
Q.
Right.
A.
And due to ATF reconsiderations, two of
them ware never put into production; the BM-3000 and
the Ballou belt-fed conversion unit.
Q.
That brings me to my next question. Do
you submit items to the Firearms Technology Br anch
for classification?
A.
I do.
Q.
Can you say how many times you've
submitted items?
A.
Several. I couldn't add them up in my
head. There's a good many.
Do you submit these items because you ' re
Q.
test.
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325619/text.htm
1501
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 28 of93
58
required to submit them?
A.
No, I'm not required to submit them .
Q.
Why do you submit them?
4
5
A.
To be open and transparent and to verify
there's not some new interpretation of the law .
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Q.
Do you agree with the classifications
you ' ve r eceived aside from the classification of the
defendant , which we know you don ' t agree with?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
For the most part, I have agreed with my
classifications . There's been a couple of times that
I feel that a mistake has been made .
Q.
The ones where you believe a mistake has
been made , do you know specifically which one those
are?
A.
The Ballou belt-fed and the BM-3000 .
Q.
Why do you disagree with the
classification of the Ballou belt-fed?
A.
The Ballou belt-fed was originally
classified as neither a firearm nor a machinegun .
The technical wri ter read me the letter that was
awaiting signature by the chief .
I t was sent to me
months ahead of actually getting the letter, and the
written response I got was a polar opposite of what
was told over the phone. They declared i t to be a
machine and said the y wouldn't return i t to
unless
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I filled a Form 2, but i t was already in my company's

possession in a vault.
Q.
With the Ballou, with the original, I'll
call it the opinion you were given, was that based on

the actual item submitted or was that submitted on a
sketch or blueprint tha t you submitted?
A.
No, that was based on the item.
Q.
Then you said the FTB changed its
classificati on?
A.
Yes.
Did yo u submit a Form 2 with it when you

originally sent it in to FTB?
Q.
A.
No.
Q.
A.
What did you originally register it as?

I didn't register .
Q.
Bec ause you felt it was nothing?
A.
Q.
Correct .
Now, let's talk about the BM-3000, I
believe.
A.
Correct.
Q.
Why did you disagree with the
classification?
A.
Which one? It has been classified by FTB
several times.
Q.
Oh, ye s. The first one.
60
1
A.
Okay .
The first one declared that i t was
1502
RIF
10/2112009
Page 29 of92
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a machinegun .
What did you believe it to be?
Q.
A.
I thought i t wa s nothing, frankly.
And I
was working with the FEO v ery closely on that and
trying to discern from him what the ATF concerns
were.
They had come up with a testing method, shared
with me the testing method, and said, Look, we're
worried that somebody may create social disorder
because if this isn't a firearm and this isn't a
machinegun, felons could possess it, and, you know,
we were able to do this simple thing.
I addressed the concerns via design.
I
had filled out a Form 2, got the item back, modified
i t to address the concerns, rasubmitted i t .
It was
retested. and then classified as nothing, neither a
firearm nor a machinegun and sent back to me . We
ware in the midst of trying to get production done
through some subcontractors and started to make
arrangements for a full-fledge production run, and
what ended up happening was we received a spontaneous
reconsideration.
Q.
So you hadn't asked for a reconsideration?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
What was the reconsideration? What was
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the classification that came with that?

A.
Q.
A.
Q.
That i t was a machinegun .
What does BM-30 00 stand for?

Bill Messenger's $3 , 000 project .
That ' s very lit eral . Do you agree with

the testing policies or cl assification policies -and I'm using those interchangeably -- do you agree
with the classification policies of the FTB?
A.
There are no testing policies or
procedures that are published .
I do know that the
NFATCA is currently working with FTB and has a
written memorandum of understanding to develop
defined testing procedures so that we in the industry
aren't going on an Easter egg hunt when we design
something.
Q.
I see you list an area on your CV called
19
press coverage . You discuss -- I'm sorry, you don ' t

d iscuss, you l ist a docume ntary film called The Gang.
Wha t i s that about ?
20
21
A.
That's a documentary film produced by Jews
for the preservation of firearms' ownership .
18
22
23
24
25
Q.
Is that a group which you're a member ?
A.
No, I'm not a member.
They document some
of the infringements to civil rights by the ATF.
Thay felt that reconsideration of the BM-3000 and the
62
1
2
3
4
5
Glover case were examples of an agency that has some

serious issues due to a lack of a testing procedure
and how i t could infringe on somebody's civil rights.
Q.
Doesn't that group in that movi e also
espouse the opinion that the FTB perjures itself?
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm
1503
RIF
10/21 /2009
Page 30 of93
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
They do.
Do you agree with that?
A.
It 1 s happened.
Q.
Has it happened in a specific case you can
tell us about?
A.
Well, off the top of my head, you're
a skinq ma to remember this . In United States v .
Wren, Rick Vasquez testified that FTB answers all
c orrespondence in 30 days or less. I know that not
t o be true. I actually asked him about that, and he
meant generally.
Wall, it's one that I know of right off
the top of my head without having anything in front
of me, but it has happened.
Q.
There's another documentary film listed,
BATFE Fails the Test. BATFE stands for Bureau of
Alcohol Firearm Explosives , correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
What is that film about?
A.
That film is the raw footage of U.S . v.
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Glover's field test in North Carolina.

Q.
Is there any commentary with the foo tage?
A.
I don't understand.
Q.
Well, is it just literally splicing
together footage of a test or is there a voiceover or
some sort of narration?
A.
There was no splicing . I believe i t was
the actual raw footage from two different cameras, as
far as I recall.
Q.
Is there a voiceover?
A.
There may be, but if it is, it's not
throughout the whole thing. I don't recall. I
believe it was the raw footage.
Q.
What was your involvement with the film?
A.
I was on the videotape of the U.S. v .
Glover test.
Q.
You also said you've appeared on Lou Dobbs
Tonight. What was that abo ut? Have you appeared
more than once?
A.
Yes.
Q.
How many times?
A.
Interview or B-role footage?
Q.
I guess how many times have you been
int erviewed?
A.
Three or four times. I don't know how
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
many times or whether each interview was aired .

Q.
Have you discussed this case on Lou Dobbs
Tonight?
A.
I discussed the seizure and arrest of the
defendant.
Q.
Have you discussed FTB policies on Lou
Dobbs Tonight?
A.
I've discussed the lack of a defined
testing procedur.
1504
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 31 of92
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
It also states here that you've worked
closely with representative Phil Gingrey from the
Eleventh District of Georgia to author the Fairness
and Firearms Testing Act?
A.
I think i t says help author, or i t should.
Q.
It does say that , I apologize. I did not
mean to misconstrue that . What is that Act about?
A.
It's an Act that would require FTB to
videotape all examinations and all test firings of
all ammunition and firearms submitted either for a
criminal case or ~or industry submission.
Q.
Do you know what the current status of
that Act is?

A.
Dying in committee .
Q.
So it was introduced in Congress?
A.
Yes.
And i t has been reintroduced in the
65
1
last three Congresses, I think.
Q.
So you worked on this five, six years ago?
A.
Yes .
4
5
6
7
Q.
It also says, Congressional Research
Service memo randum, September 2005. It d oesn't
really give any explanation on that . What is that
about?
A.
The Congressional Research Service in 2005
produced a memorandum verifying that the ATF does not
have a written set of testing procedures.
I am
quoted in that report and mentioned in i t a couple of
times.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Now, you have several other items listed
in your press c overage. Do you discuss FTB policies
in any of those o ther items?
A.
One that I can think of would be the
Soldier of Fortune Magazine .
Q.
That would be the July 2006, page six?
A.
Correct.
Q.
What do you say in that?
A.
It was an article that I was asked to
write by the editor of where is the Fairness in
Firearms Testing Act, and he asked me for core
reasons for how mistakes happen and how people can
find themselves at a judicial liability concerning
66
1
2
3
4
ATF.
5
6
7
Q.
So, it seems to me, based on what you
testified, that this issue regarding testing o f
firearms for you has become a cause; is that fair?
He was asking me to give him root causes.

He also took some creative license and put in a
subtitle that I didn't -- certainly didn't author.
A.
Q.
You worked to write a bill, correct?
10
A.
Correct.
11
12
13
I'd like i t addressed.
Q.
Well, I won 't count the BATFE Fails the
Test because that was f ootage you appeared in, but
you worked on the film, The Gang, correct?
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm
1505
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 32 of93
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I was interviewed.
Q.
You were inter viewed in the film?
For approximately five minutes.
A.
Q.
You ' ve appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight by
y our own statement more than once?
A.
Correct .
Q.
You ' ve been interviewed fo r Soldier of
Fortune, correct?
A.
Wall, I was asked to write -Q.
I ' m sorry , I misspoke . You wrote in a
piece for Soldier of Fortune?
Uh-huh.
A.
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Did you commission this Congressional
Research Service memorandum? Were you interviewed?
How did that work?
A.
I didn't even know until after the fact.
Although, I did ask Representative Gingrey and
several other several members of Congress to please
request it .
Q.
So it's become a political cause for you?
A.
I wouldn't call it a political cause at
all.
Q.
What would you call it?
A.
We have a situation where very sincere
people at FTB without a defined set of testing
standards can, from time to time, make mistakes by
using methods which are designed to get a specific
outcome versus methods to get at the facts.
Q.
I have j ust a c ouple more questions for
you and then we'll break f o r lunc h . Do you have any
forma l legal training?
A.
No .
Q.
Have you ever classified a firearm for the
Government?
A.
No .
Q.
Have you classified a firearm for any
other r egulatory body?
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.
No .
Q.
Have you been deposed pri or to this case?
A.
I think approximately 20, 25 years ago
because I saw an accident. Somebody sued AMC. That
should tell you how long ago .
Q.
You're not talking about the movie
theaters, I take it ?
A.
No .
Q.
Would you c h aracteri ze your relationsh ip
with the ATF as adversary?
A.
It has been from time to time. There's
been some individuals where there's been friction,
but certainly I wouldn't call it adversarial;
insistent .
Q.
You're insistent ?
A.
So are they, at times. I ask them to
please re-evaluate the defendant, and they ware
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 l 9/text.htm 1506
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 33 of93
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rather insistent when they said not a chance.
Q.
Is it possible they were just right?
A.
Certainly, it's possible.
Q.
Do you believe that ATF, specifically the
Firearms Technology Branch, has it in for you?
A.
I don't think that the branch does . There
have been individuals who have said some things out
of the heat of the moment. Certainly, the e-mails
69
1
2
3
that were put on the record last week show that there
is certainly soma institutional resentment for the
way that I have handled myself .
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Now, those e-mails were not from people in
FTB?
A.
Actually, some ware, but none that were
derisive or pejorative.
Q.
Do you feel that FEO Kingery has it out
for you or in for you; in, out?

MR. MONROE : Are you dist inguishing
between being in and being out?
MR. VISCOMI: I'm not even going there.
THE WITNESS: I believe he's sincere, and
I believe that he's just misguided in his
classification in this case.
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) So you do not believe
his classification is based on any sort of personal
animus?
A.
I'm not in his mind . I don't know that.
I think that it's rather coincidental the timing of
his assignment.
Q.
How so?
A.
We were on opposing sides in Olofson and
then four moments later he was assigned to evaluate a
product for my company.
70
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q.
But the Government prevailed in Olofson.
He was convicted .
A.
Oh, I understand.
Q.
So why would there be any sort of
retribution? That's what you're intimating.
A.
I'm sorry?
Q.
Yo ur implication is that Mr. Kingery was
assigned the classification of the defendant not
randomly, but instead as a way t o get back at you for
your participation in the Ol ofson case?
A.
I don't believe I was intimating that. I
said i t was rather coincidental. I was concerned
about the appearance of impropriety; good or bad .
Imagine if i t was approved and because of -- there
would also be a question in somebody's mind.
As a matter of fact, I spoke with his
supervisor and specifically asked him, because of the
possibility of the appearance of impropriety, could
ha please reassign the case.
Q.
What you were told?
A.
No.
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 34 of93
22
23
24
25
Q.
But do you hold the belief that the
classification of the defendant in this case was in
any way affected by your participation in the Olofson
case?
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I don't know that one way or the other.

Do you have an opinion on that ?
MR . MONROE : I ' ll object on the grounds
that calls for an opinion that ' s not r eall y in
his e xpertise. You can answer , if you can.
Q.
(By Mr . Viscomi) Please ans wer the
question , if you can .
A.
Possibly, when this began, but as this
case has progressed and I have had more interaction
with FEO Kingery, I believe he's sincere in his
beliefs. But his training beinq primarily from FTB
for FTB purposes, narrowed the paradigm, if you will,
for his methodology and his classification.
MR. VISCOMI: At this time , we wi ll break
for lunch . Thank you .
(Recess from 12 : 03 p.m. to 1 :23 p.m . )
Q.
(By Mr. Viscomi) We ' ve returne d from
lunch . Mr . Savage , you ' re still under oat h. I
understand you have something you wanted t o clarify?
A.
Yes. One of my earlier answers to your
question, I think you put it to me in such a way, had
I ever classified a firearm for a federal agency.
And I have; several, actually. As a manufacturer,
when I fill out a Form 2, ATF Form 2, I do classify
it prior to submitting it to the ATF.
Q.
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Those classifications, they have no
binding authority on the ATF, correct?
A.
I dont understand your question.
Q.
The ATF can follo w up and make their own
determination on what the device in question is?
A.
Are you asking me the question, did they?
Yes . I didn't know they could, but they did in this
case.
Q.
So when you 've done that, you have
classified items that you have manufactured or
designed as part of your responsibility as a
manufacturer, correct?
A.
Yeah. The law requires me to reclassify
it.
Q.
Correct. Did you have anything further
that you wanted to clarify?
A.
No, sir, that's fine .
Q.
I just want to say there ' s a couple of
things I wanted to ask you before I finish my
portion , if you will . I just want e d to make sure I
covered your CV completely . You currently have a
federal arms manufacturing license; is that correct?
A.
Yes . I am an 07, which is a manufacturer ,
and I currently hold a special occupational tax stamp
or SOT, which allows me to make NFA firearms except
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 35 of93
73
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for destructive devices.

Q.
How long have you had your FFL?
A.
Close to eight or nine years. I'm not
certain. I believe it was submitted in either 2000,
2001; my application.
Q.
Have you ever had an FFL that's expired?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever had one that's been taken
away from you?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever abandoned one?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever had any sort of federal
firearms-related license, like your SOT, taken away
from you?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you ever been ineligible to have a
federal firearms license?
A.
No.
Q.
What about the SOT?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you hold any other licenses except your
driver's license?
A.
Not currently.
You said not currently. Did you have
Q.
something in the past?

A.
Yes. I did have a medical license both as
an emergency medical technician and an emergency
medical technician specialty.
Q.
Did you ever work as either of those?
A.
I worked and volunteered.
Q.
When was this?
A.
1988 to may be '93.
Q.
You let those licences expire?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Why?
A.
I move to Mississippi and, frankly, after
one too many high-speed traumas, it starts to get to
you after a while; mangled bodies, children injured,
burns. I served my time.
Q.
Were you working as a volunteer
fire f ighter or something like that?
A.
Yes, with the Frenchtown Fire Department,
and I used to make extra money running ambulance out
of Detroit Receiving House, Detroit Receiving.
MR. VISCOMI: You've seen it all. Okay .
Well , I have nothing further for you at this
time . And at this point , Mr . Foster is going to
take over.
75
1509
RIF
10/2112009
Page 36 of93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FOSTER:
Q.
Good afternoon, Mr. Savage. As you know,
my name is Harry Foster. I'm an attorney with ATF
and I'm also a special assistant United States
attorney on this case. This afternoon we're going to
talk specifically about the defendant and how it was
created and everything about it here. So just going
back to the beginning, when did you first get the
idea to design the defendant?
A.
Several years ago.
There was an express
need within the firearms industry, and several people
that I had met at gun shows or Knob Creek that would
come to my shop .
The Ballou belt-fed was probably, I
would say, the first functional unit and the 54R
belt-fed ammo in the way of a conversion unit for a
MAC-10 machinegun.
Q.
Now, back in October of 2008, you traveled
to the United States Attorney's Office in Atlanta and

you met with myself and Mr. Viscomi and Ms. Goss. Do
you recall that day?
A.
Q.
Yes .
A.
That is correct.
At that meeting you stated that you had a

son in the United States military; is that correct?
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
I believe at the meeting you stated that
one of your purposes in designing the defendant was
to provide a weapons system that was more compact and
powerful than what was currently available to the
U.S. military?
A.
Yes.
Ha expressed a concern when he was
in a wreck that the M-4s were vary hard to deploy, if
you will, in a cab of a truck or a humvee. And if
you had ever seen the Ballou belt-fed, you would have
seen that i t was huge as far as in size, length,
height, width, and the weight was greater than that
of the defendant .
He had come by and told me, Dad, you need
to come up with something.
I'm not a military
contractor.
I know some. And i t was one of the
driving purposes because he said there was a naad,
and he was deployed to Iraq at the time.
Q.
Do you know if the military is currently
fielding replacements for the SAW, the M60, or the

240?
A.
I have no clue.
I was going off of my
son's request.
Q.
So you have no real reason to know whether
or not the military would be interested in the

defendant?
77
2
3
A.
Q.
No, I have no reason to know.
But you say that was one of the primary

motives in creating the defendant?
1510
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 37 of93
4
5
6
A.
Certainly one of them.

Is the military prohibited from possessing
machineguns manufactured after 1986?
7
A.
No,
B
Q.
So if your purpose was to get this weapon
9 out to your son, because obviously you care for your
10 son and to guys like him who are serving their
11 country, wouldn't it have been better to just go
12 ahead and register it as a machinegun instead of
13 delaying it with litigation to get it registered as a
14 short-barrel rifle?
15
A.
Well, that wasn't my only purpose. The
16 only way that the military would look at that is if
17 it was fielded and shown to be functional and not
18 have issues, and I thought the best way to pursue it
19 was to get it into production.
20
Q.
Would you say that it's a fair statement
21 that the defendant is a hybrid design firearm? And
22 what I mean by hybrid is it's combining two different
23 existing firearms together, so to speak.
24
MR. MONROE: I object to the extent that
25
you're asking -- well, it's a compound question.
Q.
78
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
You're asking if it's a hybrid and if it's a

firearm.
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) Is it a hybrid design?
A.
It's a design that uses the feed mechanism
off of one type of firearm so that it can ba used in
another type of firearm. It's a caliber conversion
device.
Q.
Now, where I was going with this is do you
know of any advantage of a hybrid design machinegun
over like a factory PK design?
A.
Well, a factory PK design is different
than the defendant for several reasons; length,
weight, several other things. As an inventor and as
somebody who tries to develop firearms, sometimes you
don't know what you have until you actually get it to
where it needs to be and then it may evolve from that
point.
Q.
You've never submitted a firearm to the
facility for adoption or testing?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you know what that process is?
A.
No; nor would I atta.mpt it. I would
approach a currant military contractor with a working
functional.
Q.
Do you know if there are any criteria that
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
must be met before submission t o the mi li tary ?

A.
Again, I don' t know the process .
Do you think it would be helpful t o know
Q.
the process before designing something to submit t o
the military?
A.
I don't understand your question.
Q.
If the military has a specific requirement
1511
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 38 of93
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
for firearms, don't you think it would be better to

know those before designing the weapon so you know it
meets those requirements?
A.
Well, as I stated before, i t wasn't the
sole reason for the design and manufacture of the
defendant.
Q.
Now, you stated that one of the problems
with the factory PK is it's a large weapon. It's
heavy and it's long.
18
A.
standing.
19
20
21
22
Q.
Okay. Wouldn't it be more reliable just
to shorten the barrel and the gas operating system
and leave the receiver and fire control components
intact?
23
24
25
A.
And you can't fire i t from the shoulder
Possibly; but possibly not.
Didn't the U.S. military do that with the

M60 machinegun?
Q.
80
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
A.
of junk.
Thay dumped the M60 because i t was a piece
Q.
But early on from the early models where
it was much like the PK where it was designed to be
fired from a bipod, did they not later adapt it so
that it was a more c ompact weapon that could be fired
from the shoulder?
8
9
10
11
12
13
A.
It was still a piece of junk.
Q.
That wasn't the question.
A.
Then I don't understand what you're
saying. Did they do that? Yes, they did do that.
What I'm saying is they did that and i t still didn't
work.
14
Q.
Okay. Is the MAC fire control system
somehow more reliable or superior to the original
fire control group on a PK machinegun?
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I would probably -- well, lat me restate
that.
They're pretty close in design. They're a
dropping sear. There are definitely some major
differences, but the MAC machinegun fire control
system is also in the hands of probably the most
prolific machinagun in civilian hands, and that would
be the MAC series of machinegun. Therefore, more
people could use i t if I'd design a MAC upper that
would allow the use of the 7.62X54R belted ammunition
81
1
2
3
4
5
versus coming up with a machinegun.

Q.
So earlier when you said that designing
the defendant for the military was one reason, that

implies that there are other reasons ; is that
correct?
A.
That is correct.
Q.
What are the other reasons?
B
9
10
11
A.
Sales of either the defendant to
registered machinagun owners or sale of the project
like other projects I have sold to larger
manufacturers.
1512
RIF
10/21 /2009
Page 39 of93
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
And you would anticipate financial gain
from either of those?
A.
Yes.
Q.
As well as financial gain if you sold it
to the military?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that why in James Mayo's deposition he
described the purpose of the short barrel for the
Hollywood effect? Is that one of the reasons you
designed it that way, so it would have this appeal to
the industry?
A.
Q.
barrel --
J ame s Mayo ne v er made that statement .
He didn't say that he had a short
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
A.
Bill Messenger was --
I'm sorry, was it Bill Messenger?

(Witness nods head in the affirmative . )
Q.
I apologize. Is that part of th e reason
fo r doing t hat is to ma ke this more desir able to
people?
A.
Q.
For doing what?
Pursuing a short barrel f or, as he

described it, the Hollywood effect.
A.
That may be his reason for it. My reason
for doing i t was to address the stated concerns of
ATF about MAC uppers being possessed by prohibited
parsons . There was a statement that, you know, they
didn't want to see them being sold out of the back of
pickup trucks in the front of gun shows.
If i t has a shorter barrel, then since all
MAC uppers under 479.11 are indeed a receiver -- they
house the bolt, the bolt is part of the fire control
mechanism, they're threaded at the forward end to
accept a barrel -- under that definition, then every
MAC upper, even though the ATF chooses not to enforce
it, is indeed a receiver. That makes i t a GCA
firearm just by being a receiver.
The short barrel being attached to i t and
since it's dasiqned to be installed into a MAC
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
machinegun, which is shoulder fired, then as a

short-barrel rifle the stated concerns of personnel
at ATF are prohibited persons possessing, selling, or
transferring thQJll would be addressed because no
prohibited person could ever get i t transferred into
their name . Thay couldn't be sold in the front of a
gun show out of the back of a pickup because i t would
require a NFA transfer, and the ATF would know who
possessed them at any given time due to the
registration on the NFRTR.
Q.
But if the defendant is just a
short-barrel ri fl e, couldn't you or anyone else take

i t o ut o f the purview of the NFA by simply installing
a 16-inc h barrel on it?
A.
Certainly.
It was discussed, I believe
1513
RIF
10/21 /2009
Page 40 of93
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with Chief Spencer .

I was trying to decide if under
the new definition of any other weapon, a gadget gun
or a gadget device would be a better classification
due to the fact if i t had a six-inch barrel or a
60-foot barrel, i t would also be under the purview of
the NFA .
The advice I got from him was let ma
submit i t as a short-barrel rifle . And I believe I
told Jeff Viscomi in a phone conference prior to
invoking counsel that I was open to the idea of
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reclassifying i t as any other weapon under the gadget

gun or gadget device clause to address that concern,
because that concern came up in that October meeting,
if you remember.
Q.
Going back to that October meeting, at
that meeting you also stated that you had a client
who had several thousand, I guess it was like a PK
parts kits or something like that, who was interested
in your development of this product. Do you recall
that?
A.
I had a prospective client. They've since
sold off on or divested the themselves. To my
understanding, they're no longer interested in this
project just due to the extreme attention of the
Government, shall we say.
Q.
Who was that?
A.
Well , I had an agreement with him not to
divulge it.
MR. MONROE : If you have a contract not t o
divulge it , then you shouldn ' t respond.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster)
If the other party is no
longer interested, is that contract still binding?
conclusion . Answer, if you can.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) So you said you had the
ide a s everal years ago to develop the defendant.
Whe n d i d you actually start putting pen to paper , so
t o spea k ?
A.
I don't recall any specific dates . I
remember i t possibly would be in the range of late
February to early March, I guess , really working on
it .
Q.
That was my question. In the process of
designing t his firearm, were you able to devote your
ent i r e time and attention to it or did other projects
ke ep you o c cupied, as well?
A.
I had other projects . I had production of
some ordered firearms and I did devote a regular
amount of time on a weekly basis .
I probably de voted
somewhere between 20 to 30 hours a weak on i t trying
to figure everything out.
Q.
Do you have an idea of approximately how
ma ny hours you put into the design?
1514
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 41 of 93
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
give you
Q.
that all
you just
together
I didn t keep track of it. Anything I

is just going to be a guess.
The initial portion of your design, was
on paper or is this one of these things that
sort of have to start putting things
and see what happens?
1
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Wall, I wouldn't call it quite as
hazardous as you just described. There was a couple
of rough rudimentary drawings . Nothing that I would
call anything in the way of a good schematic and
mostly dona by aligning certain parts and pieces
together and just actually to go from idea to
hands-on and actually start putting things together;
adjusting and changing if necessary.
Q.
Did you consult with Orin Harding in
designing this firearm?
A.
I spoke with him a couple of times about
it.
Q.
Did you consult with Monty Mendenhall on
A.
Other than the fact that I was working on
-- only in general terms at the time.
Q.
Did you consult with Ernie Wren in
A.
No.
Q.
Did you consult with James Mayo?
A.
In some general terms, yes, very general.
Just, What do you think of this . Do you think if I
pursue this -- you know, asking their opinions on
what did they think if I could produce a MAC upper
that was belt fed, fairly lightweight, and tha
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
caliber 7.62X54R.
Q.
Did you consult with John Craig in
A.
No.
MR. MONROE: Object to the form .
MR. FOSTER: I realize what you were going
to say. I apologize.
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) Did you consult with
Ramsey A. Bear in designing this firearm?
MR. MONROE: Object to firearm.
MR. FOSTER: Sorry.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Did you consult with
Ramsey A. Bear in designing the defendant?
A.
I don't know who Ramsey A. Bear is.
Q.
Okay. Then I'm assuming you didn't
consult with him . Did you consult with William
Messenger in designing the defendant?
A.
On occasion, yes. And, again, in vary
general terms, just due to the fact that Bill
Hassenger had an interest, and all the different MAC
uppers we designed some of which are in production
some shut down.
Q.
Including the $3 , 000 interest?
https://vip21.nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 I 9/text.htm
1515
RIF
10/21 /2009
Page 42 of93
24
25
A.
Wall, of course. You know, but ha was
also interested in the Calico that's currently in
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
production
still own,
enthusiast
tham to be
Q.
and I do know that ha owned, if ha doesn't

a Flemming .22 upper . He's a machinegun
and owns several machineguns and wants
as versatile as possible.
Did you consult with Russell Weeks on the

design of the defendant?
A.
Not on the design of i t . I contacted him
last April or May when we were scheduling a test .
Q.
Did you consult with Phil Thompson on the
design of the defendant?

A.
Not on the design; on it's marketability .

So who else did you consult with?
A.
A couple of members of the industry;
larger manufacturers. I'm trying to recall names . I
talked to several . What did they think of the
development of .
Q.
Were the responses positive?
A.
Very .
Q.
Now, after you put the rudimentary
Q.
drawing , as you described them, when did you begin

fabricating the defendant?
A.
I don't recall tha exact date.
Q.
Do you know how many hours it took to
fabricate it , approximately?
A.
You asked me that b e fore .
It would ba,
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
again, I can give you an estimate. Probably between

a hundred and 200 hours.
Q.
I guess maybe I wasn't clear earlier.
Earlier I was sort of breaking it down to the design

phase and then the actual construction phrase of the
prototype, and maybe they might be intertwined.
A.
And they are, they're kind of
intermingled.
Q.
So you say between 100 and 200 hours?
10
11
12
13
14
A.
Somewhere in there and that's an estimate.
17
16
Q.
And so that we don't get repetitive, I
have to go back through the list of names. When I
asked earlier about consulting with different people
that I listed, and if we need go back through them, I
have no problem, just for the sake of not keeping us
here, but when you consulted with them in the design,
did you also consult with those same individuals in
fabrication, as well?
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Not on the fabrications, that I recall .
The only person that I consulted on fabrication with
would have been one of the originators of the RPO -oh, I'm sorry, the PKM semi would have been Wiselita
Arms and whether or not if this went into production.
I didn't want to have to destroy $1,000
receivers in order to produce this upper.
I wanted
15
16
1516
RIF
10/2112009
Page 43 of92
90
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
to sea whether or not they had dies.

If this went
into production, you know, could i t be stamped in two
hemispheres, and details of how -- because the
methods used in construction of the prototype are
typically far different than the methods used in the
production process.
Q.
Who was it you spoke with at Wiselite, do
you recall?
A.
I believe Tony Wendling.
Q.
What did he say i n response to your
question?
A.
He had a nondisclosure agreement with the
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
two other parties involved in the developing of that

and really couldn't go into i t .
20
21
22
and honoring their word .
23
24
25
Q.
Is that pretty common in the industry?
A.
Unfortunately, yes.
Q.
Everyone wants t o protect their patents
and property right s .
A.
Well, I'm glad that they're man of honor
Q.
Now, does Histori c Arms e ver subcontract
the f abricat ion to other lic ensees?
A.
As far as having, what , receivers made?
Q.
Whatever parts.
A.
Sure .
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
What ' s the advantage of doing that?
A.
Thay may have a piece of equipment that I
don't have. My shop is sat up with a manual mill and
a manual lathe . And if I'm going to be having to
make repetitive parts, from a cost perspective, it's
cheaper to pay the subcontractor who can push a
button and i t just, you know, makes the same thing
over and over again.
It frees ma up to handle the
other duties as to Historic Arms .
Q.
I guess t h is is one of those diff e r e n ces
that you said between a p r oduction mod el a nd a

prototype?
A.
Yes .
Q.
So i n fabricati ng the d efendan t , did y ou
sub anyt hing out or wa s i t all d one i n hous e?
A.
It was all done inhousa .
Q.
So once the d efend an t was complete , did
yo u conduct any testin g of it?
A.
Yes .
Q.
What did you d o?
A.
Verified that i t wouldn't fire and
verified that i t functioned as designed when
installed in a machinegun and then tried to strictly
scrutinize and look at i t from every angle as to what
the Government's position would be and reviewed
92
1
definitions under the GCA, definitions under the
1517
RIF
10/21 /2009
Page 44 of93
2
3
Federal Code of Regulations and definitions under the

NFA to classify it, if you will .
4
5
6
Q.
The defendant , as you intended it, was to
fire utilizing -- was it an MlO receiver ; is that
correct?
7
8
9
A.
It was designed specifically to be
installed in an MlO lawfully possessed and registered
machinegun .
10
11
Q.
The MlO traditionally, as it was
originally designed, was what caliber?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.
.45/9mm and then there's bean sub-caliber
units in . 22, and I believe a smattering of other
calibers .
Q.
The cartridge that the defendant utilizes
24
25
is what caliber?
A.
Q.
7.62X54R .
That's a substantially heavier caliber or

more powerful caliber than a .45/9rnrn or any of the,
as you call them, sub-calibers?
A.
But the power and size and the method of
feed is irrelevant in a machinegun .
Q.
What I was just curious about was were you
ever concerned about the ability of the MlO receiver

to take the constant punishment created by the
93
1
2
heavier caliber being used?

A.
Q.
Of course i t was of concern.
3
4
Were you ab l e to allay those fears or come

up with some - -
5
6
A.
Well, the defendant is the culmination of
that; of verifying and malting sure.
Q.
Did you do testing to determine whether or
not the defendant would damage a registered MAC-1 0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
machinegun?
A.
We did a good deal of testing and tried to
abusively fire a MAC-10 machinegun with the defendant
installed. Our greatest concern was elongation of
the crosspin hole between the MAC machinegun and the
defendant, and none was noted.
Q.
What was the testing you performed?
A.
Firing 200-round bursts or 250-round
complete nonstop Mag or belt dump, if you will, to
the point of getting the barrel sizzlingly hot. The
system is designed for burst fire, which means
squeeze and release/squeeze and release so as to not
overheat or overstress components . We took i t beyond
its design and gave i t a punishing amount of fire to
see if we could induce a failure.
Q.
You say, we. Who is we?
A.
Historic Arms.
94
1
2
Q.
Historic Arms is compri sed o f y ou and your
wife; is that correct?
3
4
A.
I'm sorry, when I say we, I ' m talking
about this company . I did . I performed that test .
Q.
Do you ha ve other e mpl o yees that work wi th
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325619/text.htm
1518
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 45 of93
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you at Historic Arms?

A.
Typically not. There was one or two
occasions during some of these testings that there
ware other people present. They were not employees
of Historic Arms, but they were witnesses to some of
the testing .
Q.
You said you would do, I think you called
it, a 200-round belt dump?
A.
On a couple of occasions to try to
overheat it, overstress it, to see if it could take
the punishment. It was not designed to do that,
but
Q.
How many times did you do that?
A.
Oh, I'm not certain of the amount of
times . I know i t was more than once or twice. I
went through several cases of ammunition. A case
being a thousand rounds.
Q.
Did you allow the firearm to cool in
between these different belt dumps?
A.
Sometimes. Sometimes I went back to back.
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
How long did the testing go on?

Less than a week and more than a couple of
days. I'm not certain.
Q.
Now, was the testing something that you
had to do or just something you felt that was
necessary to do?
A.
I feel I have to do it when I'm developing
a product. I certainly don't want a product flying
apart and injuring anybody. I want to design a
product that doesn't have failures, both in failure
to fire or failure of subcomponents. So even though
it's not required of me, it's something that I do.
Q.
Now, d oes the firearms industry have
t e sting protocols or procedures tha t you followed?
A.
The firearms industry?
Q.
Just s ort of an industrywide standard for
testing firearms.
A.
There are laboratories that, I guess, I
could have sent i t out to that definitely have
defined procedurs. But the industry, first of all,
would have no reason to have them. And if we were
looking for them, we would look for the ATF to
provide them to us.
Q.
I guess what I meant by a ll that was, does
the industry have sort of like safet y standards or
Q.
A.
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
liability standards that they would encourage you or

would hope that their members would use to make sure
their products function reliably and safely?
A.
Well, the industry is regulated by the
Government. The Government has not imposed anything
like that on the industry that I'm aware of.
Q.
But aren't there cases where some
industries self-regulate themselves?
A.
Sure.
1519
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 46 of93
10
11
12
13
Q.
In the course of your testing of the
firearm, did you come across some changes that you
decided you should make in the defendant?
21
A.
I'm sure there were some relatively minor
havinq to do with the buffer system. And I'm trying
to think of another specific, but, sure.
I mean,
you're tweaking it. You're inventing something.
It's evolving. I mean, you didn't ay, okay, I'm
going to adjust this. Oh, crap, that's not going to
work. Now, I've got to do this. And then when you
modify that, youva got to modify this. So it's an
evolving process.
22
23
24
25
Q.
the buffer
A.
Q.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
So you made some kind of modification to

system, as you recall?
Yes.
Do you know what that was?
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
A.
I used high-density polyethylene in the
back. I needed to extend it. There was a problem
with the shell extractor. The forked piece on top
that extracts the shall from the belt qoes forward
before it pushes i t down was bottoming out against
the top cover latch base.
Q.
What modifications did you make?
8
9
10
A.
I made i t longer, so that when i t was
assembled into a MAC-10 machinequn, i t will no longer
bottom out against it.
11
12
13
Q.
You made the polyethylene?
you're referring to?
14
A.
buffer.
15
16
Q.
Okay . So were there other prototypes or
was this just one model you kept --
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Yes.
Is that what
I increased the length of the
Widdling on?
Q.
That was one of the words you could use.
I was trying to come up with something more artistic.
A.
Yes. The defendant was it, and it's the
one that evolved.
Q.
Okay. At this point, I want to show you a
video we have. At this point, Mr. Viscomi is going
to play the video for you.
25
A.
I believe this is the one I sent to the
98
1
2
3
ATF.
(Video is played.)
Q.
(By Mr. Foster )
Do you recognize this
video?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is portrayed i n this video?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A.
Myself firinq the defendant installed in a
MAC-10 machinequn with a 25-round tast belt.
Q.
What was the purpos e of the video?
A.
What was the purpose for --
MR. MONROE: Counsel, are you asking what

was the purpose of making the video or what was
the purpose o f the test that is depicted in the
1520
RIF
10/21 /2009
Page 47 of93
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
video?
(By Mr. Foster)
making the video?
Q.
What was the purpose of
22
23
A.
To document where we were at on the
project and how i t was working.
I was also trying to
ascertain the angle of ejection . There's an ejector
plate on the side of the 'plaintiff' that was broken
that became an issue earlier. Without that, you
cannot fire i t from the shoulder. It will injury
your forearm.
24
25
Q.
There's someone speaking in the video .
you know who that was?
21
Do
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.
Yes . That was my neighbor.
I asked him
if he would please videotape it.
Q.
Who is your neighbor?
A.
David Barker.
Q.
I'm assuming Mr . Barker likes firearms?
A.
Yeah; but he didn't like that one.
Q.
Why not?
A.
It was loud.
Q.
I was going to say as your next-door
neighbor, I would assume you would have to en joy

firearms?
13
A.
neighbor.
14
15
16
Q.
So this video was taken at your p l ace; is
that c orrect ?
A.
That was taken at Historic Arms on the
17
test range.
18
19
20
Q.
Well, he's not next door.

We're pretty rural.
He's a
How big is your test range?
22
23
A.
40 yards is actually what that's set up
at; that one.
Q.
Describe what your test range consists of .
A.
A backstop 40 yards out from the shooting
position .
24
25
Q.
Was anyone else present but did not appear
on camera or operate the camera?
21
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A.
Not at that time. That was just myself.
There was one other video.
I was trying to get some
input from somebody who was an avid machinequn
enthusiast and wanted to ask him what he thought of
controllability issues, and i t gave me an opportunity
to observe somebody else firing the defendant
installed in a MAC-10 machinequn.
Q.
When was t his v ideo ta ken?
A.
I don't recall .
Q.
Okay. We' re going to go on to a second
video here, if you don 't mind.

(Video is pla yed. )
Q.
(By Mr . Fos ter) Do you recognize t h i s
video ?
A.
Q.
A.
Yes, I do.
Tell me what this video is .

This is a video of Mr. Mark Schaffer.
1521
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 48 of 93
18
19
20
21
22
gave him a little preliminary information, a short

teaser belt, and was asking him h i s input ; both, what
did ha think of the upper, what did he think of the
controllability, any issues that h a thinks neede d to
ba addressed. That type of thing .
23
Q.
Now, Mr. Scha ffe r , wha t was hi s int e rest
i n the def enda nt?
24
25
A.
Ha had come by the shop f or some thin g and
1 01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ha was a good subject . I wanted to get a cold

opinion from somebody who is a firearms enthusiast,
and who also -- I believe ha owns several
machineguns -- his opinion of the product installed
i n the MAC machinegun.
Q.
Now, other than the fact that he's a
firearm enthusiast or firearms owner, does he have

anything to do with the firearm industry?
A.
No. He had nothing to do with the design
other than just give me a good cold test .
Q.
Now, other than Mr . Schaffer in the
videos, was there anyone else present there at the

time?
A.
Q.
Not that I remember.
A.
I can try.
(Video is pl.ayed. )
There were two voices that were speaking

in the video. Do you recognize both of them? We c an
replay it if that would he lp you .
THE WITNESS: That's myself. That's Mark .
That was my voice and Mr. Schaffer's voice.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Now, this video was also
taken at your range; is that corr ect?
A.
Q.
That is correct.
Was this shot on the same da y as the
102
earlier video with you and your neighbor?
2
3
4
A.
I don't recall. I know it was the same
timeframe. I cannot tell you what day or whether
they were together.
5
6
7
Q.
And believe it or not, we have a third
video. Is that actually snow on the ground? We were
curious about that.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A.
No. That's probably a buil.ding. It's
hard to tell . Sometimes cameras white out when
you're in the dark .
Q.
Shooting in to a bright -(Video is played . )

THE WITNESS: That's Mark Schaffer. That
was the same day. He did both videos the same
day.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) So those were shot at the
exact same time?
A.
Q.
Yeah; minutes within each other.
A.
I bel.ieve possibly, I want to say, that my
Now, were both, only you and Mark, present

for those videos?
1522
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 49 of92
22
23
24
25
daughter and Mark's son were present, but I'm not

certain. I know because they were standing behind
ma.
Q.
It s ounds like a female voice in there
103
making --
2
3
A.
That's probably my seven-year old.
loves guns.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
She
13
14
MR . FOSTER : At this point , would y' all

like to go ahead and take a break?
THE WITNESS : Always . Thank you .
(Rece ss from 2 : 12 p . m. to 2 : 33 p.m.)
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) We ' re returning back on
the record , Mr . Savage . And once again, you' re still
under oath . Whe n we last left , we looked at some
videos.
Now I just want to talk to you basically
about the individual parts of the defendant. What
parts composed the defendant?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Several . There was the remains of a
destroyed PI<M semi-automatic receiver. There was a
MAC-10-type upper. Maybe i t was a crashed MAC upper
from some project, or what have you, that the
portions I needed ware complete. There were several
bits and pieces, if you will, of sheet metal, and
there was some PI<M tanker parts in the way of a front
trunnion.
The barrel of the tanker was modified as
well as the bolt carrier was heavily modified . The
feed system top cover feed tray, feed paw, ware stock
11
12
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PK . It would be the same for a machinequn or a seai.

There's no difference.
And I believe the cocking handle, and I
used a MAG 58 recoil assembly. There was soma
high-density nylon and some high-density
polyethylene. I'm sure that's not exhaustive, but
that's to the bast of my recollection .
8
9
Q.
Do you rely on the same supplie rs t o get
pa r ts for your designs ?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
Sometimes; sometimes not.
A.
Q.
I got it from Century Arms.
Specific ally, do you know where you got

t he PK tanker parts f or the defendant?
Do they provide a lot of different parts
f o r you?
A.
They provi de a lot of different parts for
a lot of different people.
Q.
Now, were t hese part s purchased from
Century or was this sort of under an agreement , hey,

look if you want t o play with these and then send
back what you have, we might be interested?
A.
Century actually wanted ma to develop -asked me if I was interested in developing a
semi-automatic PK, and I told them that there was
another company that had already done that . Thay
1523
RIF
10/21 /2009
Page 50 of93
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said they had some tanker parts, and I said I

wouldn ' t mind fiddling with them to see what I could
come up with .
Q.
So they provided them gratis or free?
A.
Oh, no, I was invoiced. Century doesn't
do anything for free.
Q.
Now, just for the record, what is meant by
tanker?
A.
It's a variation of th Pl<M that was
desiqned to be a coaxial gun for Com.Bloc tanks, if
you will. They do not contain a butt stock . They
don't contain a traditional pistol grip. They
actually have a spade-gripping back plus a solenoid
so that the gun can be fired electrically without a
person firing it other than, you know, at the other
end of the switch, I should say. And no sights,
because it's a coaxial gun.
Q.
Can you e xplain once again just for the
record for laypeople what is meant by coaxial?
A.
Typically, a gun that was aimed in the
same spot as the main gun. I've heard people refer
to it as a gun sticking out of the side of the tank,
but a tank's main armament being its ancillary
cannon.
Q.
So you obtained the PK parts kits from
106
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Century. Where did you ob t ain the PK receiver?

A.
I got that from Wiselight Arms. It was an
engineering failure, if you will, back when they ware
developing. It was warped. It was warped to the
point of not being useful to turn it into a firearm.
I destroyed it for its component parts.
Q.
Did you p ay for this or was this something
that you we re at l ea st able to get a discount on?
A.
I got a discount. Tony and I trade parts
and services and occasion. Sometimes we compete
against one another. Sometimes he's working on a
system and I would give him technical input if he was
having issues . I would sometimes call him for advice
because he concentrates primarily on manufacture and
does also concentrate on research and developing of
firearms. So it's sort of a cooperative agreQJDent.
We bill each other and take care of each other as far
as costs incurrd.
Q.
So onc e y ou obtain t h e r eceiver you said
you destroye d the r eceiver ?
A.
Yes.
Q.
How did you destr oy i t?
A.
I was trying to get to a point knowing
what portion of the PK system that I wanted to , I
think as you put it, hybridize. I had removad the
107
1524
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 51of93
1
2
3
4
5
6
antire bottom of the receiver to, I think, the last

two inches or the last inch and three-quarters and
had completely removed it. It was free-flopping
around and couldn't even housa a barrel. I guess i t
could house a barrel, but I don't think i t could ever
house a bolt.
7
8
Q.
receiver?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Is that all you d id to it, to the

I'm sorry?
Q.
Is that all the modifications you did to
the receiver i s just r emove t hi s bottom shelf?
A.
destroying
Q.
A.
Wall, in making the defendant or

it?
Des troying it.

No.
That's all I did to destroy i t .
Q.
So when you destr oyed it , was it basically
similar to what last week your attorney presented in
a depos i tion as Object 2?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, when you des t r oyed it , what tools did
you use to des troy it?
A.
It would have been a zip wheel, which is
an abrasive cutting wheel, vary thin, about a 32nd of
an inch and a plasma cutter.
Q.
Now, did you have some kind of a jig or
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some kind of a table to hold the rece iver so you were

able to cut st raight lines?
A.
I believe I used a straight edga . Yas, I
bald it, secured i t in a vice on a worktable, and
possibly a pair of pliers.
Q.
What do you mean by the term zip wheel?
A.
It's an abrasive cutoff wheel.
It's
pneumatically powered.
It runs at approximately
20,000 rpm and is very adept at cutting sheet metal .
You can use i t to shape and sand, but it's primarily
used to cut m~tal with very quickly.
Q.
So this is basically a pneumatic Dremel,
for lack of a better term.

A.
A pneumatic Dremel on steroids . There
actually is such a thing as a pneumatic-type Dramel,
but i t doesn ' t have near the horsepower. This can
cut pretty heavy stuff due to tha size of the air
motor .
Q.
So this is a more professional grade?
A.
And mora powerful.
Q.
More powerful. And then a plasma cutter,
can you explain for the record what a plasma cutter

is?
A.
A plasma cutter uses ionized air to cut
metal . It reaches temperatures of 1500, 2,000
109
1
2
degrees and i t cuts a very precise hole.

laser beam, if you will.
Q.
Like a
What was the cutting width of the plasma
10/21/2009
1525
RIF
Page 52 of93
4
5
6
cutter that you used?
10
A.
Depending on tip size, I'm going to
estimate that it's width was probably close to
100/1000 or a tenth of an inch. It can be anywhere
as thin as 60/1000 of an inch to 100/1000 of an inch
wide of displaced metal.
Q.
So in this case , you believe it was a
11
100/1000 of an inch?
12
13
14
15
16
A.
Yeah; because the kerf, i t kind of stood
off, So the f urther you are from the metal, the
wider the kerf gets.
8
9
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Can you define the term kerf?
A.
Kerf is just the line of displaced metal
whether you're u sing a torch or a plasma cutter .
That's what's missing, if you will.
Q.
Now, in your response to the discovery ,
you said that you established landmarks on the

receiver. Do you recall this?
A.
Yes.
Q,
Can you explain and tell us what landmarks
A.
Landmarks; to establish where the sear
are?
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
engagement in a MAC machinegun versus where I would

need sear engagement on the caliber conversion unit,
the defendant , That's one set of landmarks . Another
landmark would be an attachment point. A MAC lower
attaches to its upper through a crosspin and the
forward end of the receiver.
You would have to establish where the
attachment point would be. You would also have to
establish the landmark of sort of the distance of how
far away from the center point of your crosspin to
the rear of the caliber conversion device so it would
correspond proper with the interior rear portion of
the MAC machinequn. Then there's , also, the MAC
machinequn has as a disconnector, and you would have
to establish where that would need to be in the
caliber conversion device.
Q.
So how many landmarks did you es tablish?
21
A.
Several. Sometimes I do it unconsciously ,
but i t was hard for me to break tha t down because I
would just do it . Lay it ou t in front of me wi th the
physical pieces.
22
23
24
25
Q.
So this is not necessari l y where you take
precise measurements and go back and fo rth? This is
a ctually sort of the fitting of the parts t ogether,
s o to speak?
20
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
A.
Yeah . But there is vary precise
measurements and what you said, going back and forth
saying, okay, where does this need to land, where
does that need to land, so that these won't -- you
know, operate properly between the two; the upper and
the lower .
Q.
You sa i d t ha t once you est ablished t hese ,
1526
RIF
10/2 1/2009
Page 53 of93
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you used scribe lines on the receiver or you scribed

lines?
A.
Sure . You would scribe a line. Once you
e stablished it, you would scribe a line and then make
a corresponding line between the component parts that
comprise the caliber conversion device.
Sometimes
y ou tack weld at that point . You may tack weld and
then start checking relationships with other things
and have to cut the tack weld and readjust.
I
remmnber doing that a couple of times, but I couldn't
tell when and where . It's just something automatic.
Q.
It 's just part of the process?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When you obtained the receiver from
Wiselite , did you discuss with them what features
were included on that receiver to prevent automatic
fire?
A.
To ny actually discusse d that with me that
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the two distinguishing features that the ATF Firearms

Technology Branch required were the left-hand bolt
rail, I believe , and a blocking bar on the floor of
the receiver .
Q.
Do you know what the purpose of the
l e ft-hand rail was ?
A.
Yes .
It was to prevent the installation
of machinegun components .
Q.
What was t he purpose o f t he bloc king bar?
A.
The same.
Q.
Now , you s t ated t hat you removed the l ower
s hel f from the r e c eiver, correct ?
A.
The lower floor of the receiver.
Q.
The l ower floor.
A.
The reason for that was that the
interaction of the MAC machinegun components - - I was
trying to get the feed system, if you will . I knew
that I was going to have to entirely break away from
the PK design b e cause of several issues involving
alignment.
Q.
So the lower fl oor, as you called it , is
tha t whe r e the blocking ba r is att ached?
It is .
A.
And when you removed t he lower fl oor, you
Q.
removed t he locki ng ba r , as well , correct ?
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A.
Correct . What I wanted was the top edge,
if you will, the cocking handl and the feed system.
I really could care less about the rest of it, and I
was cutting i t up .
If I would have had more time and money, I
would have just fabricated from a dead dig and
started with new sheet metal, but this was the
quicker way to get to a prototype because
construction of a prototype is typically vastly
different than the production of a production unit.
Q.
I'm assuming that a prototype would
https ://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3 25619/text.htm
10/21/2009
1527
RIF
Page 54 of93
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
involve lots of hand fitting where a production

should be purely interchangeable parts?
A.
Q.
Correct.
So are you familiar with the destruction

requirements for a PK machinegun?
A.
Somewhat. The destruction and
requirements in genral of the ATF have evolved over
a period of time, but currently I believe i t requires
three diagonal cuts of a 1/4 inch or more of
displacement or the omission of portions of the
receiver all together.
The reason I say that is some parts that
you get still have a rear portion of the receiver
attached to the butt stock, not necessarily the PK,
11 4
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but I have seen i t and sometimes have the front

portion of the receiver, but nothing in betwan.
Q.
Now , the receiver , after cutting the fl oor
out of it, were there still attachment points at the

rear of the receiver where you could attach a rear
trunnion?
A.
I don 1 t recall because this was a
prototype. It may not have had the rivet holes in
it, and this was one of their engineering failures.
I don't recall if i t actually did or didn't.
I don't
believe i t was complete.
I was just trying to
utilize the feed system off of i t and the attachment
point for the front trunnion.
Q.
Was the r e ceiver transferred t o you as a
firearm?
A.
Yes, i t was.
Q.
So it went into your A&D book then?
A.
Yes.
It went into my A&D book as a
transfer from Wisalite Arms to Historic Arms. And on
disposition, i t is still marked as destroyed.
Q.
Now, you said that you were familiar with
ATF's destruction requirements, and you said that it
involved using a torch that displaced 1/4 inch; is
that correct?
A.
That is correct.
115
1
2
3
Q.
You stated that you used a plasma cutter
that displaced 1/1000 or 1/100 of an inch? I'm
s orry, forgive me, which one it was.
4
5
6
7
8
9
A.
Approximately a 10th of an inch. You're
talking about apples and oranges. We're not talking
about this destruction of a machinagun. We're
talking about the destruction of a GCA firearm frame
or receiver for the use in making another GCA
firearm. The destruction requirements you're
discussing have to do with PK machinequns, not PK
semis.
To my knowledge, I don't know that there is
any ATF destruction requirements for semi-automatic
firearms.
Q.
Do you not think that it would not be
10
11
12
13
14
15
applicable, if the receivers are that similar, to use
10/21/2009
1528
RIF
Page 55 of92
16
17
the destruction guidelines for the machinegun on the

semi-automatic?
18
19
20
21
A.
I still think you're comparing apples to
oranges. I was taking a firearm frame or receiver
and destroying i t for its component parts in the
pursuit of a design of another GCA firearm .
Q.
But didn't you register it under the NFA?
A.
Sure; after i t had a barrel length of lass
than 16 inches. And since i t is designed to be fired
from the shoulder when installed in a MAC machinegun,
22
23
24
25
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that would make i t an NFA firearm.

Q.
So you didn't think it was necessary to
follow the guidelines that already have been

established for a PK machinegun when you allegedly
destroyed the semi-automatic receiver?
A.
confused.
Q.
Can you rephrase that?
I'm kind of
Absolutely. You didn't foll ow ATF's

guidance for destroying a full-auto PK when you
attempted to destroy a semi-automatic PK?
A.
It was a semi-automatic PK.
I was trying
to design a new type of firearm to ba used as a

caliber conversion device to be installed in a MAC
machinegun.
Its design was sufficiently new and
different that i t was different than the original
receiver, by far.
That's the way to describe this.
In the Calico MAC conversion system, the
use of a portion of the Calico receiver, the Calico
is a cast aluminum piece. Th magwell is cast into
the receiver. The Calico receiver is destroyed
typically by machining off everything but the
magwell, and then what you're left with is a magwell.
Then under 479.11, that's no longer a firearm frame
or receiver .
So when you say established guidelines for
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
designing a firearm, for destroying a machinegun;

well, i t wasn't a machinegun. So they were
inapplicable . I was pursuing a design and going to
use specific parts from i t strictly for the purposes
of creation of tha prototype of the design so that
that I, a, could make sure i t worked because I had
lots of problems with it; b, I'm completely
transparent.
There's only one firearm in my life that
my company played a part in that was not sent to ATF
and that was the 971 sport rifle, and that was under
my protest . Masterpiece and RPB of Atlanta overrode
me and said, Look, we're certain it's not an issue.
Everything I design, I send to FTB as a
courtesy. This is what I'm working on.
I want to
verify that you guys don't have an issue with it. I
want to verify that there's not some quirky
interpretation of the law with respect to it.
Q.
Now, would you agree that the purpose of
1529
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 56 of93
20
21
22
23
24
25
destroy ing a firearm receiver, whether it's GCA or

NFA, is to make it so that that r eceiver cannot
function as a firearm?
A.
I say that the purpose for destroying the
receiver would be to make sure that i t no longer
falls under C . F.R . 479.11, the definition of firearm
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
frame or receiver.
Q.
Now, that what you just cited was an NFA
regulation, but would you also say under the GCA that
the purpose of destroying a firearm is so that it
does not fall under the definition -- firearm or
receiver so it doesn't fall under the definition of
firearm under the GCA?
conclusion, but answer if you can.
THE WITNESS: The purpose can be that .
The purpose can be that you're changing it
materially from one thing to another . You might
be building on somebody's design. You might
want it to have wings, a jet engine. I mean,
whatever your heart desires.
If it's no longer like the original one,
you may have destroyed it, you may not.
I'm
kind of confused at your question.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) The whole purpose of
destroying a firearm is so that it's no longer a
firearm, correct?
MR. MONROE: Objection. Asked and
answered.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster)
Is a firearm that's not
properly destroyed still a firearm?
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
MR. MONROE : Counsel are you asking under

the NFA or the GCA?
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) Both .
A.
Possibly. I mean, a great example would
be if you took that receiver behind you, that PI<M
stripped receiver, and we threw it on the train
tracks and a train ran over i t and fl.attened i t out,
it's not destroyed in accordance with the guidelines,
but is it stil.1 a firearm frame or receiver? No .
But was i t destroyed in accordance with the ATF
guidelines? No. So I'm kind of confused.
I mean, just because i t was destroyed in a
manner different than the ATF suggested quidel.ines
versus in a manner that was more suitable for the
purposes of my company for developing a product in a
project, it's still destroyed .
Q.
If you flatten the receiver, as you
described on the train track, would it still hav e all
of the attachment points and ability to accept
barrels, trunnions, bolts, and other parts of
firearms that are necessary for a firearm to expel
projectiles?
A.
It depends if i t was laying lengthwise or
1530
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 57 of93
24
25
crosswise on the tracks, I guess.

Q.
So woul d you not think that to destroy a
120
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
receiver you should destroy attachment points for

barrels?
A.
I wouldn't think about it at all. Again,
I don't understand your question. I destroyed it
from what it was into a portion that I could use in
making the defendant firearm.
Q.
How did removing the portion of the floor
prevent the PK from functioning?
A.
The receiver from functioning?
Q.
Yes , sir .
A.
Well, let see. I guess you could attempt
to reinstall the front rear trunnion. And if you
insert it, the semi parts back into it, it would
never function because there's no attachment point
for fire control. And it wouldn't do anything other
than chamber a round and you eject it, chamber a
round and you eject.
I highly doubt that the sidewalls which
are less than 60/1000 of an inch think, whatever,
would stand recoil pressure if you could ever get it
to fire.
Q.
But assuming you install a fr ont and rear
trunnion and you took a full y automatic PK bolt and
bolt carrier and widened the left-hand rail , would it
then function as a machinegun?
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
But that ' s not what I had. I didn't have
anything with a front and rear trunnion in it and
there was no means of it to fire; so, no .
Q.
You s aid that's not what you h ad. My
question is: I f you took a PK receiver, like
Object 2 that you presented the other day , attached
the front trunni on, attached a rear trunnion, and put
a modified PK bo lt and bolt carrier in such that the
left-hand rail rail slot was widened so that bo lt
would then go i n over the semi-automatic r ail, would
yo u expect i t then t o function ?
A.
You'd be at that point attempting t o
manufacture somethi ng beyond what I had. So we ' re
talking hyperbole and what ifs. Could it be made to
work, I'm sure it's possible. It wouldn't be
anything I would attempt, so it never really occurred
to me.
Q.
How is it different fr om what you had ?
A.
How is it different?
Q.
Yes, sir.
A.
Well, first of all, my caliber conversion
device doesn't have a rear trunnion. I wouldn't
install it in it . It's specifically designed to work
within a MAC machinegun. It's heiqhth of the bolt
carrier is completely different from the
1531
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 58 of93
122
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
semi-automatic PI<M, completely different from the

fully-automatic PK, and is designed exclusively to
work in conjunction with a MAC machinequn receiver.
The total heighth of tha receiver is
completely different because of that and to
accommodate fitting into the MAC machinequn, and the
haighth in the front at tha trunnion is completely
different. The gas system is completing different,
and it's structurally reinforced to operate correctly
inside of a MAC machinegun.
Q.
So let's talk about, though , what is
similar. Do both, what we talked about, if we took
Object 2 and attached a front trunnion to it, does
the defendant also have a front trunnion?
A.
Q.
Yes, it does.
A.
No.
Q.
It
A.
It does not.
In the rear, the addition of the portion

of the MAC upper is the rear, does that not in
reality act as a rear trunnion?
Q.
receiver?
does not?
It does not give the dimensi on to the
A.
It gives i t the dimensions to properly fit
within a MAC machinegun.
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
Q.
Now, does it not, though -- what is the
definition of a trunnion?
A.
Within the firearms industry?
Q.
Sure.
A.
That portion of the firearm that holds the
barrel, and it typically is separate or installed at
a later date than the receiver . And, as a matter of
fact, the ATF at one point considered a trunnion to
be a machinequn. So it's kind of confusing as to the
evolving standard, if you will.
11
Q.
What's the purpose of a rear trunnion?
12
A.
In the PK or in the AK?
13
Q.
In a PK.
14
15
16
17
18
19
A.
It's to contain the recoil system to be
the attachment point of the stock, if we're talking
about a standard PK. If we're talking about a PK
tanker, it's tha attachment point of the solenoid
unit and spade grip assembly. And to, also, be the
latching point of the top cover.
20
21
Q.
Doesn't the stock on your device attach
basically to the MAC upper that's welded into the
receiver?
22
23
24
25
A.
Stock of what device?
Q.
The stock that you designed the defendant
t o fire from, is it not attaching to that same point
124
in the back?
1532
RIF
10121/2009
Page 59 of93
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
The defendant or my caliber conversion is
not designed to be attached to a stock. It's
designed to be attached to a MAC machinegun.
Q.
Is the stock not attached to the MAC
machinegun right at that same point?
A.
Vary close, but not at that same point,
no. The MAC machinegun contains a stock.
Q.
But doesn ' t the MAC upper that ' s attached
into the defendant , isn't that used to provide an
attachment point for a stock?
A.
No. It's designed to be a portion of tha
attachment point to a MAC machinegun.
Q.
How does welding a MAC upper to any
firearm receiver make that receive r a MAC upper?
A.
How does not welding it make or not make
somethinq a MAC upper? What if I made this out of a
homogenous piece of folded sheet metal? It would not
have changed the design nor the function of this.
That was done for expediency sake for
producing a prototype, but a MAC upper is going to
have to have certain dimensional characteristics in
order to attach to a MAC machinegun. Using those for
expediency sake by one that was sitting off the shelf
and combining it with other things such as a Calico,
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Maqwell, or in this case, the feed system off of a PK

type system, it comes down to what it's designed to
do.
You seam to be getting hung up on the
precise steps I took getting there, but it is
designed to be a caliber conversion system for a MAC
upper. It is designed specifically for that function
and no other function . It is designe d to work in
conjunction with a MAC machinegun and does so
controllably . It is designed to be fired from the
shoul der while installed i n a MAC machinegun .
Q.
Now, t he bo l t a nd bolt carrier that you
use d in t he def e ndant , doe s that also come in the
t an ker pa r t s kit from Ce ntury?
A.
I believe so, yes.
Q.
Did you modify the bolt itsel f?
A.
Yes.
Q.
How d id you mod ify t he bolt ?
A.
So that it would fit my completed caliber
conversion receiver.
Q.
What modifi cations ?
A.
I believe 60/1000 was removed from the
left side and that's on the bolt. On the bolt
carrier, it completel y and radically changed. The
bottom of the bolt carrier was -- the sear surface
126
1
2
3
4
5
was completely machined away and a new one put in its

place and welded in .
It was designed with a replaceable sear
surface because that's an issue with MAC machineguns
is rounding off of the sear bent, i s the term, and
10/21/2009
1533
RIF
Page 60 of93
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they have runaways, and i t affords the opportunity to

replace i t reqularly. It had to be considerably
taller so that it would interact properly with the
MAC machinegun ,
Q.
What tools or machines did you use to make
these modifications?
A.
I'll do my best. I can't -- it's not
going to be exhaustive. I don't have the
interrogatory in front of me, but I believe: Milling
machine; welding equipment; assorted hand tools; die
grinders; deburring tools; Allen wrench, that I know
of for sure; and, my micrometer calibers, if you
will. Again, that's not exhaustive. That's just me
trying to go off of memory.
Q.
Fair enough. Why did you increase the
rail groove on the left side of the bolt carrier?
A.
For the same reason they do when they make
a bolt carrier for a PK semi. You see, all bolt
carriers whether they be a PK machinegun, PK semi, or
in the caliber conversion device, their origins are
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of a machinegun bolt carrier and they are all altered

to some degree or another; except for the machinegun,
mind you.
The PK semi is a modified bolt carrier and
the bolt carrier in the defendant was modified to fit
the caliber conversion system and to interact with
the MAC fire control system as all MAC uppers . All
MAC uppers are open bolt. All MAC uppers have a
fixed firing pin, if you will, and all MAC uppers
contain a barrel . So I see a great deal more of
similarities than
some MAC uppers actually contain
a feed system on top and in the same location as the
defendant has.
Q.
In reality, wasn't the purpose of
increasing the left rail groove to defeat that
to
allow the installation of an automatic rnachinegun
bolt into the defendant?
A.
No. That was the purpose of the
conversion device was to defeat the design features
of the conversion -- you know, the caliber conversion
device. That's what that was designed to do. That
was designed to defeat features .
Q.
How does the conversion device defeat the
increased rail on the left-hand side?
A.
Well, no, you said what was the purpose of
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-- maybe I 'm misunderstanding. Go ahead and restate

the question.
Q.
Wasn't the purpos e of widening the
left-hand rail on the bolt carrier to allow the
installation of a fully automatic machinegun-type
bolt into a semi -automatic receiver?
A.
No. First of all, because it's not a
semi-automatic receiver, it's just a receiver under
the Gun Control Act. Second of all, it's not a fully
1534
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 61 of9::
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
automatic bolt carrier or machine. You said PK bolt

carrier, and it's completely different in its
designed. It's designed to specifically function
with a MAC machinegun.
It's different from a semi bolt carrier.
A semi bolt carrier will not fit the defendant. A
fully-automatic bolt carrier will not fit the
defendant. Only the proprietary bolt carrier will
fit the defendant. Was i t machined out so that i t
would correspond with the rail? Yes. But there ware
other inherent changes made to make sure that a
machinegun bolt carrier would not fit. Such as the
difference in the gas piston assembly.
Let's see what else. That's the one that
comes to mind now because if you att&J1pt to try to
put a machinegun bolt carrier in the defendant, i t
129
1
2
3
4
won't go in. It will not fit. It is designed to be

absolutely different than everything else in the
market so that nobody would do anything stupid like
that.
5
6
7
8
9
Q.
You seem to be hung up on this notion that
your device has to be 100 percent identical to a PK
machinegun in o rder to be a machinegun; is that true?
MR. MONROE: Are you asking if it's true
that he's hung up on it or is it true that -Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Is it true that it has to
be 100 percent identical to a PK rnachinegun to be a
machinegun?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I'm kind of confused by that because my
device acts identical to other MAC-10 devices and has
the same types of features and characteristic that
the Firearms Technology Branch does not even consider
them to be a firearm or a machinegun, but seems to be
hung up because of the silhouette or the difference
in caliber earlier seemed to bother you a great deal
that that seems to be an issue.
So to answer your question, i t can or i t
can't be. There's other things there. There's not
enough information there for me to make that
determination. That could be one of many things .
You can have a machinegun and another machinagun and
130
1
2
their parts don't interfit but they're still

machineguns, but this is not the case here.
3
4
5
Q.
So you're saying it has to be a PK
machinegun? It has to be 100 per cent identical t o a
PK to be one?
7
8
A.
Q.
I didn't say that.
No, that can't be true.
So your device could be a machinegun of

its entirely own making?
A.
10
Q.
It can't be true?
11
12
13
A.
It can't be true.
Q.
Your device does not expel pro jectiles by
means of an explosive with a single funct i on of the
1535
RIF
10/21/2009
Page 62 of93
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trigger?
A.
Unless its installed in a machinegun or a
conversion device is attached, my device will do
nothing. It won't even chamber a round.
Q.
I want to put in front of you what we'll
call Object No. 1. Do you recognize Object No. l?
A.
Yes .
Q.
What is Object No. l?
A.
Object No . 1 is an M- 16 lower receiver
made by a Hydra-Matic division, stamped U. S .
property, contains no serial numbe r, and is
definitely an M16 receiver.
1 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Why is it an Ml6 receiver?
A.
Well, an M16 lower receiver. Forgive me,
I misspoke. It is because it's marked semi-auto, has
the access pinhole for the auto sear, and has been
designed by the ATF to be the firearm frame or
receiver of the AR-15/M16 family .
Q.
As it sits before you, will this expel
projectiles by means of explosives, multiple
projectiles by means of explosives, with a single
function of a trigger?
A.
No.
Q.
But it's a machinegun, correct?
A.
Wel.l, it could be a machinequn, but it's
not necessarily the receiver or frame of a firearm.
Q.
If you p ossess that item and it was
unregistered, would you be arrested f o r p ossessi o n o f
an unregistered machinegun?
MR. MONROE: Objec tion. Calls for a legal
c onclusion. Answer it, if you can.
THE WITNESS: The best to illustrate my
answer, the FNC is very similar to this, to the
AR-15 family. And this particular par t of the
firearm was considered to be the frame or
rece iver of the machinegun and of the firearm
and is no longer considered to be the frame or
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
receiver of the firearm, but instead the upper

that houses the bolt barrel . And that's a
ruling from last year.
Strictly speaking, I think it's a
conversion device because it houses the
auto-sear. And to illustrate that, if you look
at a drop-in auto sear, the ATF considers that
to be a conversion devi c e and a machinegun, and
there's several of them on the registry. One
just drops in. One is attached to the hole here
in the receiver and both do the same function.
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) My question was: Is that
a machinegun?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You would enter it in your A&D book?
A.
Well, not without a serial number.
Q.
If it had a serial number and that firearm
10/21/2009
1536
RIF
Page 63 of93
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was transferred to you, would you enter it into an

A&D book?
A.
Yes; but it's not necessarily a machinequn
because it's a frame or receiver machinequn.
Q.
Has ATF classified that as a frame or
receiver of the machinegun?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Has ATF classified the defendant as the
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
frame or receiver of a machinegun?

A.
Actually, no,
They claimed that i t was
designed to be a machinequn and they claimed that i t
was readily restorable.
I don't think that they
claimed that i t was a frame or receiver of a
machinequn.
Q.
If Object 1 in front of you didn't have
the hole in it above the select or location, would it
still be a firearm?
MR. MONROE : Are you asking if it's a GCA
firearm or an NFA firearm?
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) A GCA firearm.
A.
The ATF considers i t to be the frame or
receiver of a firearm .
It does not meet the
definition of a frame or receiver . Actually, the
upper of an AR- 15 actually complies with the
definition. The ATF has a willing suspension of
disbelief on this . My suspi cions are it's because i t
was in production prior to the GCA's passage . Again,
I refer you back to the ATF ruling on the FNC .
MR. FOSTER : At this point , we ' ve gone a

little over an hour. Why don ' t we go ahead and
take a break.
(Recess from 3:21 p . m. to 3:41 p.m.)
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Mr. Savage, we are back
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
after our break and we are going to continue talking

about PK bolt carriers. Would a PK bolt carrier,
whose left rail slot was widened to accommodate the
increased rail size of a semi-automatic PK, fit in an
automatic PK if the blocking bar was removed?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Would a PK bolt carrier, whose left rail
was widened, would it fire fully automatically?
A.
Q.
It depends.
A.
It could.
Okay. If you remove the trigger group

from that same PK, semi-auto PK with a modified
full-auto bolt, would it fire fully automatically as
a sputter gun?
Q.
Would it do that without a chain
tensioning bolt or metal plate?
A.
Well, without seeing it, I can't say for
certain. And I suspect i t would take more than what
you're saying, but i t would not require -- I don't
believe i t would require a chain tension bolt and
aluminum plate.
10/21/2009
1537
RIF
Page 64 of93
22
23
24
25
Q,
Now, in your response to the plaintiff's
first request for admission number seven, you stated
that in production you would not use semi-automatic
receivers, but that you would construct the receivers
135
1
yourself ; is that correct?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A.
I would not, as I stated before earlier,
we would not use the same method of production that
was used in the production of the prototype. First
of all, i t would be cost prohibitive. Second of all,
due to the multitude of changes that were made and
the differences in dimensions, if i t goes into
production, i t would be, you know, newly made.
Q.
If you were to construct the receiver
9
10
11
12
your self , would you still utilize a wide left rail

and a modified bolt carrier?
A.
Q.
When you say modified --
13
14
15
Would you still utilize the wide left rail

that ' s used on the semi-automatic PK and then modify
a fully automatic bolt by widening out the bolt slot?
16
17
A.
Possibly. When it's newly constructed for
p roduction, chances are i t might even try to widen
b oth rails just for the sake of proprietary reasons
to prevent knockoff copies, if you will. I would
definitely want the bolt carrier to be different than
a PK machinegun bolt carrier and different than a
sami. You wouldn't want the ability for one or the
other to be used .
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
So if you were to construct the receiver
yourself, then you would not utilize a standard PK
136
left rail?
2
3
4
A.
A standard PK left rail is the same as a
standard right rail as far as top to bottom
dimension.
Q.
The dimensions of that rail , you would not
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
use the narr ower rail that ' s common on the PK

machinegun if y ou were to construct the receiver
yourself?
A.
I guess I don't understand your question .
You're saying if company -- a business-approved
p r oject is now in production and these are all being
newly made
Q.
Correct.
A.
-- you're asking me if the dimension of
the right rail? Left rail?
Q.
No. What I ' m stating is: If pr oduction
was approved and you went into production with this

model and you were manufactur ing your own receivers
instead of p urchasing receivers from Wiselite, you
would not utiliz e a standard narrower r ail like a
standard PK machinegun has?
A.
No.
No, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't want to
Second of
all, dimensionally, it wouldn't work. But, no, I
wouldn't . I would not use a machinegun rail system .
-- well, first of all, it wouldn't work.
10/21/2009
1538
RIF
Page 65 of93
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It would be similar, but definitely different in

dimension.
Q.
Now, the barrel and the gas operating
system that are on the defendant, these also came
from the parts kit that you purchased from Century
Arms?
Yes. Wait a minute. Barrel, yes; gas
A.
system, no. Forgive me.
Q.
Okay. Let's talk about the barrel first,
then. The barrel that you purchased from Century
Arms, how did you decide on the length of the barrel?
A.
I mean, why did we -Q.
Well, I mean, the overall length of the
barrel, how long is the barrel itself?
A.
I don't recall without having notes in
front of me. Are you asking me how did I determine
to make it less than 16 inches?
Q.
No. I'm just asking, once you decided it
was going to be less than 16 inches, how did you
decide what length t o make it?
A.
Oh. That was determined in my phone
conversation with Chief Spencer for under less than
16 inches so that we can make sure that prohibitive
persons never possessed nor could they buy or
transfer them, let alone manufacture .
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
But onc e you decided under 16 inches , was
there any thought in going into -- did you put any
thought int o , you know, maybe 12 inches would be
superior t o 14 inches or anything alon g those lines?
A.
I wanted to keep a minimum barrel length
between the gas block and the muzzle to provide a
sufficient time curve for the gas system to operate.
Now, there is a critical relationship there. Because
the way a gas-operated firearm works is while the
bullet is going down the barrel and it passes the gas
block, a portion of the propellant gases are diverted
to operate the gas piston.
If you cut the barrel too short in front
of the gas block, there's not enough time. Even
though we're talking nanoseconds, the firearm will
have problems operating; possibly not cycle without
the use of some sort of muzzle booster cone. But the
primary purpose of deciding on 15 -- I think it was
15-3/4 inches, plus or minus, if I rem.8Jllber -- that
was so that we could make it a short-barreled rifle.
And that way the stated concerns of prohibitive
persons from possessing it and the ATF would know
where every unit was and who owned it.
Q.
Now, you were talking about the amount of
time . That there was a curve there, sort of a window
139
10/2112009
1539
RIF
Page 66 of93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that you had to fit in so you had sufficient pressure

to operate the gas system?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Is that based on some sort of a
calculation? Do you perform a calculation to
determine this or is this something that you have to
do by trial and error?
A.
Well, there are formulas for it. On this,
I didn't need to because there was sufficient barrel
length in front of the gas block. As long as I'm
within four inches, we're good on the 7 . 62XS4R.
Q.
So in this case, the first time, you got
it right and you didn't need to modify it?
A.
Well, I work on and I've designed some
other semi-automatics that are gas operated; so, yes.
Q.
So based on your experience, you were able
to figure this out? Get it right on the first time ?
You didn't have to sit there and cut inches here and
go back and forth?
A.
Well, I
Q.
Obviously, you can't go ba c k.
A.
We did have issues when I did cut the
barrel with cycling issue. I believe I increased the
size of the gas port, if I remember correctly. It's
been a while, but I know that I had to tinker with it
140
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somewhat. There was an issue because it didn't want

to cycle near the cyclic rate . It had dropped and
there was issues with i t going all the way in recoil.
Q.
So you cut the ba r rel once and then when
it didn't function up to what you hoped it to
function, instead of redoing the barrel, you just
adjusted the gas port?
A.
Yeah, just poured more gas. Yeah, there
were runability and reliability issues . There were a
couple of them if I remember right.
Q.
These were things that you worked out
during your testing period?
A.
Yes.
Q.
The piston, you said that you did not get
the piston from the tanker kit. Where did you get
the piston from?
A.
That was homemade . The base of the piston
I believe was a portion of the PK gas piston, but the
actual. piston was made at Historic Arms on the lathe.
Q.
Now , did it start as like something els e
and then you -A.
Yes, i t did . There's no such thing as
scrap metal in the gun industry.
Q.
Okay.
A.
The nearest piece of stock I could find
141
1
2
3
that was close, I believe is what I used. I couldn't

tell you what i t was made out of . I don't recall.
Q.
Now, how does the ga s piston attach to t he
10/21/2009
1540
RIF
Page 67 of93
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
bolt carrier?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
I s it a bli nd p in?
No.
So it ' s something that if it was to break ,

this is something users c an r eplace ver y qui ckly?
A.
Not very quickly. It's typically peened
in . That ' s the reason they typically have to be
machined cut or driven out, and then the pin is
destroyed. It's in there pretty tight. It's
typically pressed in and branded over, if I remember
correctly.
Q.
The modifications you made on the gas
piston , you said you used the lathe . Do you know

what other tools you might have used?
A.
caliper.
Deburring tools, possibly a micrometer, a

You know, hand tools, machinist tools .
Q.
Moving onto the ha nd guards .
the hand guards come from?
23
A.
Q.
24
25
It ' s pinned in.
Where did
TAPCO.
TAPCO .
What were they originally designed
for?
142
1
A.
They were designed for an AK.
Q.
The forward hand guard for an AK?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
A.
Yes . They were split, I want to say, the
Galil-style handgun for the AK, which is a hybrid
hand quard . A PK does not have a forward grip or
hand quard because if you attempt to fire from the
shoulder, the ejection path of the empties will embed
themselves into your carpal tunnel and wrist and
forearm.
That's another distinct difference between
that, the PK, and the caliber conversion system, but
there was a modified AK hand guard that was made by
TAPCO here in Kennesaw, Georgia .
Q.
What modifications did you have to ma ke?
A.
Split them down lengthwise and blind
riveted them on the caliber conversion device .
Q.
Why did you blind rivet them?
A.
Just ease of manufacture; just drill a
hole on top of it.
Q.
Is that easier than just putting a screw
in?
24
A.
Yes; and typically i t won't vibrate out,
i t was just so that I had a hand guard.
Q.
Would you do the bl i nd rivet in a
25
production model or would that be something that's
23
U3
prior r emoval?
2
3
way .
4
5
Q.
Moving back to the operating rod, recoil
spring, and buffer, where did you get those parts?
6
7
A.
Operating rod and recoil springs were
leftovers from the MAG 58 project. I had several
A.
I don't know.
I mean , i t could go either
10/21 /2009
1541
RIF
Page 68 of93
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
different spring tensions and a talascope more suited

for purposes of the project than the PK recoil
system.
Q.
Now, the MAG 58 parts, where did you
obtain those from, do you recall?
A.
Savaral different sources; PSA, possibly
some from Ohio Ordinance, possibly soma from vendors
at Knob Creek. They're more inlina for use with a
MAC-10, MAC-type uppers of a self-contained recoil
system, if you will, where a PK is a spring-over-rod
method.
Q.
Now, the buffer itself, the white machined
piece of plastic -A.
White and black?
Q.
Yes, sir -- where did you get that from?
A.
That was made from raw material.
Q.
What did you use to make that?
A.
High-density nylon and high-density
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
polyethylene.
Q.
What tools did you use t o make it?
A.
Various machinist hand tools and a
vertical mill .
Q.
A vertical mill?
A.
(Witness nods head in tha affirmative.)
Q.
After you modified all of these parts, you
then assembled the defendant?
A.
Actually, I had been test fitting and
assembling throughout.
Q.
Okay.
A.
It's part of the process of -- it's hard
for me to describe putting what's in my haad to the
pieces in my hand.
Q.
That's, I guess, one of the differences we
were talking about earlier between doing a prototype
and doing a production model, which would be
interchangeable. In this case, it's more function
over preciseness, so to speak. You 're just trying t o
make a working model and see how it went? Not that
you weren't being precise.
A.
There's a couple of different methods for
design on paper that can work. A lot of times I can
sea it in my mind, if you will, in three dimensions
and just let my hands build it.
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Q.
Now, are you familiar with the marketing
requirements that must be put on a firearm by a
licensed manufacturer?
A.
Yas.
Q.
What are those?
A.
Well, since I think it's 2004, the depth
has got to ba a minimum of 3/1000. I think it's
3/32nds in haighth. But basically, a manufacturer
must give his name, city, state, model, caliber, and
serial number.
Q.
Okay. Where must these markings appear ?
https ://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3 25619/text.htm
10/21/2009
1542
RIF
Page 69 of9;
12
13
14
15
A.
Q.
On the receiver; anywhere on the receiver .
A.
Q.
Stamped, pressed, engraved.
Now, how must they be applied? Is there

any specific way that they have to be put on?
16
17
Are there certain ways that are not

allowed by ATF?
18
19
20
21
A.
I think the electro-pencil is not allowed
anymore . I don't use that method . I use a line
stamp, typically, or hand stamps.
Q.
How do you ensure the proper depth? Is
22
23
that something you measure? Or is it, once again, a

formula by force that you know is going to work?
24
25
hair .
A.
Well , 3/1000 is half the width of a human

So if you can feel i t with a thumbnail , you're
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
that deep, but there are depth gauges you could use.
But typically if I want something, I've got to worry
about that I don't go too dep . I try to make i t so
that Historic Arms markings are a minimwa of 30/1000
steep. That way when they're sandblasted,
parkerized, painted, handled, rust, i t won't wear
away.
Q.
Did you mark the defendant?
A.
Yes, I did.
Q.
If the defendant is a caliber conversio n
device, why did you mark it?
A.
Because I believe that all MAC uppers fall
under the definition of a firearm frame or receiver,
because they house the bolt, they're threaded at the
forward end to accept a barrel, and contain part of
the firing mechanism.
Q.
If you believe all MAC uppers are
firearms , do you enter them i nto your A&D book?
24
A.
I've brought this forth to ATF before, and
they say I'm not required; so until I'm required .
Again, the defendant or the caliber conversion
davica, the biggest reason for marking it, I actually
believe is to addres s the ATF stated concerns .
Q.
Are you f amiliar with the de finition of
25
firearm under the Gun Control Act?
23
14 7
1
A.
Q.
Yes .
2
3
Can you give me your interpretation of the

definition of firearm under the Gun Control Act?
4
5
A.
I don't aver attempt to interpret it.
I
read i t and go by it.
Q.
Would you be more comfortable reading it ?
A.
Certainly . That's why I have the
reference guide .
I think i t ' s page five or six .
Q.
Yes , sir, that's it . I t 's at t he very
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
bottom. So what is the definition of firearm under

A.
Are you asking me to read it?
Q.
Yes, sir.
A.
The term firearm maans :
(A), any weapon
including a starter gun which will or is desiqned to
10/21/2009
1543
RIF
Page 70 of93
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by

the action of an explosive; (B), the frame or
receiver of any such weapon; (C), any firearm muffler
or firearm silencer; or (D), any destructive device.
Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Q.
So that definition does include frames or
receivers?
A.
Yes, it does.
Q.
If I could see the book for a moment .
(Witness complies.)
A.
14 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Are you f a milia r with the definit ion o f
firearms unde r the Nat i onal Firearms Act?
A.
Ara we talking about 27 U.S.C. 5845(b)?
Q.
Yes , sir .
A.
Or (a)?
Q.
Act ually, we're going to t a l k a bout (a ) ,
because (b) , in my opinion , is a cla r ification of
portions of (a) . Would you mind reading the
definition of firearm under 45(a) , please .
A.
For the purposes of this chapter, a
firearm, the term firearm means:
(1), a shotgun
havinq a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in
length; (2) , a weapon made from a shotgun if such
weapon is modified and has an overall length less
than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels less than
18 inches in length; (3), a rifle havinq a barrel or
barrels less than 16 inches in length; (4), a weapon
made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an
overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
barrels less than 16 inches in lenqth; (5), any other
weapon as defined in subsection a; (6), a machinequn;
(7) , any silencer as defined in 921 of Title 18
United States Code; and (8), destructive device. The
term firearm shall not include an antique firearm or
device other than machinequn or destructive device,
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
which although desiqned as a weapon, the Secretary

finds by reason of the date of manufacture or value ,
dasiqn, or other characteristics is primarily a
collector's itQlll and not likely to be used as a
weapon.
Q.
May I see the book?
(Witness complies . )
A.
identification.)
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) At this point , n ow that
we've e stabl i shed, I'm going t o introduce Plaintiff's
Exhibit 2 . Mr. Savage, wh at I ha ve has b een labeled
a s Exhib it No . 2 . Do you recognize what is portrayed
in the picture on Exhibit Number 2?
MR. MONROE: Is this mult ipl e page s of
pi c tures?
MR. FOSTER: Yes, s ir.
MR . MONROE: Are these going to be
numbered or a nything?
10/21/2009

1544
RIF
Page 71 of 93
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FOSTER: We can number them or we can

staple them.
MR. MONROE: Well, I guess if you're
asking him about the image on the first page, I
guess that's adequate, but you should at least
say that.
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. FOSTER: Okay .

MR . MONROE: And t h ey shou l d b e kep t i n
that o rder .
Q.
(By Mr . Fos t er ) On p a g e on e , what is on
p a ge o ne?
A.
An AR-15 or M16.
Q.
Is that a firea rm?
A.
Ye s .
Q.
Under the Gun Con t r ol Act?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Might i t b e a fi rearm und er the Nationa l
Firearms Ac t ?
A.
Possibly .
Q.
If you could t urn to p age two .
A.
(Witnes s complies . )
Q.
Ca n you p oint t o a fr ame or r ecei ver as
defined by the Gun Control Act on p a ge t wo?
A.
Well , there 1 s an upper receiver and a
lower receiv e displayed here . If y ou're askinq me to
point to the one that the ATF requl ates as a
receiver, it would be the porti on at the bottom of
the page that houses the butt stock and pistol grip.
Q.
Oka y . If you could tur n t h e p age, plea se.
A.
Q.
What ' s portrayed on page three ?
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
It appears to be H&K MP-5.

A.
Q.
If you can turn to page four .
A.
Q.
On page four , which part is the controlled
ite m or the frame or receiver?
Which part is the frame or receiver?
A.
Q.
Yes , sir.
A.
That would be the part across the top of
the page that houses the bolt and contains the
barrel.
Q.
What is on page four just for the record?
A.
It looks to be a disassembled MP-5.
Q.
If you could turn to page five , please.
A.
Q.
What is on page fi v e?
A.
Page five appears to be an FNFAL-typa
rifle.
Q.
Okay .
If we could go to page six, please .
A.
(Witness complies.)
Q.
What is on page six?
A.
A disassembled FNFAL rifle.
Q.
Can you tell us what is the frame or
receiver?
10/21/2009
1545
RIF
Page 72 of93
24
25
A.
That would be the part that houses the
barrel and bolt and would be across the top.
It also
15 2
happens to be the part that the ATF regulates .
2
3
4
5
Q.
If we can turn to the next page , sir.
believe that ' s page seven .
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A.
(Witness complies.)
Q.
What is on page seven?
A.
It looks like an MP40, an MP44.
It could
even be a Yugo.
I can't really -- anyway, a
machinegun or a German, I want to say, MP40 without
being able to look at i t a little closer.
Q.
If you could turn to page eight .
A.
(Witness complies.)
Q.
What is on page eight?
A.
Q.
That weapon, disassembled.
Can you point to what is the frame or

receiver of that weapon?
A.
That would be the part that houses the
barrel on the bolt.
It's across the top of the page .
Q.
If we could go to page nine , please.
A.
(Witness complies.)
20
Q.
What is on page nine?
21
That would be an AK-47.
23
A.
Q.
A.
24
Q.
What is on page ten?
25
A.
A disassembled AK-47.
22
If you could flip to page ten , please .

(Witness complies.)
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q.
receiver?
Can you point out what is the frame or
A.
That part which houses the barrel and the
Q.
A.
Q.
Where is it in the picture?
bolt.
It's towards the bottom.
If we could flip to the next page, page
11.
A.
(Witness complies.)
10
Q.
What is depicted on page 11?
11
12
A.
It appears to be a USM 240 or -- oh, I'm
sorry, an M60, forgive me.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
25
It's an M60?
Q.
Could you point on that page as to what is
a frame or receiver?
A.
It's, again, the part that houses the
barrel and the bolt, and it's about center of the
page.
It has a removable barrel.
23
24
It's okay.
A.
Yeah.
It's kind of a grainy picture, but,
yes, i t appears to be an M60E3 or E4.
Q.
If you could flip to the following page.
A.
(Witness complies.)
Q.
Okay.
If you could flip to the following
A.
(Witness complies.)
page.
10/21/2009
1546
RIF
Page 73 of93
154
1
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
What is portrayed on t hat page?

It appears to be a Pf<M.
Could you flip to the next page.

(Witness complies.)
Could you point to the frame or receiver
of the PKM ?
A.
That's, again, that part that houses the
barrel and the bolts, and it's second up from the
bottom.
It also has a butt stock attached to i t .
Q.
If you could go to the follo wing page,
sir.
A.
Q.
What is depicted on that page?
A.
I'm not sure if it's the item you showed
me earlier, but it's certainly similar.
Q.
What is that item?
A.
That is an Ml.6 lower receiver .
Q.
Okay. If you could go to the followi ng
page.
A.
(Witness complies.)
21
Q.
What is on that page, sir?
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
A.
An H&K receiver .
Q.
What is on that page?
If we can go t o the fol l owing page , sir .

(Witness complies.)
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A.
An FAL upper receiver.
Q.
A.
Okay .
And the following page?
It appears to be a Sten receiver 2;

possibl.y.
I mean , just from the view.
It doesn't
appear to be a Starling, anyway.
Q.
If we could go to the nex t page , please .
A.
Q.
What does that appear to be?
A.
It appears to be a PK receiver .
Q.
If we could continue to the next page ,
sir.
12
A.
(Witness compl.ies.)
13
Q.
14
A.
It appears to be an Ml.6 receiver frame .
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q.
To the fol l owing p age, sir .
22
23
24
25
A.
That appears to be a PK-type receiver.
I
coul.dn't tell you what kind.
It's just a profil.e .
If you go to the ne x t page .
Q.
A.
Q.
What is depicted on the nex t page?
A.
It appears to be an AR -- oh, I'm sorry.
Wel.l, we have AR-15 components across the top of the
page and Ml.6 components across the bottom of tha
page .
And on the fol lowing page , sir?
Q.
156
1
A.
Wow, a quiz.
It appears to ba a Lightning
10/2 1/2009
1547
RIF
Page 74 of93
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Link.
Q.
What is a Lightning Link?
A.
It is a conversion device.
Is a lightning link considered a

machinegun under the Gun Control Act?
A.
All -Q.
Under the National Fi rearms Act firearms
and Control Act?
MR . MONROE: Counsel, you're asking if
it's a machinegun under the Gun Control Act?
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) It's a compound question.
Is it a machinegun?
Q.
A.
It is. Under the definition of a
machinegun, i t is .
Q.
Let's go to the next picture .
A.
Hey, I know what that is .
18
Q.
What is that?
19
20
What ki nd of firearm?
21
A.
Q.
A.
22
Q.
Is that a machinegun?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
A.
Okay.
17
25
That is, again, another conversion device.

SKS .
If we go t o the following page .
(Witness complies) .
157
1
Q.
3
4
5
It appears to be a MAC flat stamping taken

at some point prior to its completion and
manufacture.
I'm not certain, but that's awful close
to it.
6
7
8
9
Q.
The firearms depicted in here,
specifically the receivers, those are what appear to
be machineguns under the National Firearms Act,
correct?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
A.
Soma of them, I could tall were distinctly
machineguns.
Some, there was not enough detail in
the photograph .
Q.
But they were machineguns even though they
were just complete receivers and not complete
firearms?
A.
Can I see that?
Q.
Absolutely.
(Tenders document.)
MR . MONROE: Are you asking about any in
particular?
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) I mean, if you want to go
back to the picture of the M16 receiver -- why don ' t
we just do that .
A.
Some of these are machineguns because
they're conversion devices. Some of these are
machineguns, you know, if they are indeed machineguns
158
1
2
3
4
-- I'm assuming that these frames and receivers are

what you're saying to me. But some are definitely
machinaguns due to being conversion devices and some
are definitely due to being a frame and receiver.
Q.
So you acknowledge that certain fra mes or
https://vip2 l .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3 25 619/text.htm
10/21/2009
1548
RIF
Page 75 of93
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
receivers are rnachineguns under the law whether or

not they contain all the parts to make them fire?
A.
I guess with the caveat there's certain
frames or receivers that the ATF maintains or
receiver when, in fact, they're not. A notable
exception would be the AR-15/M16 family, but, yes, a
frame or receiver, separate any component parts, you
know , can be possibly a machinagun depending on what
i t is and what i t contains.
identification.)
Q.
(By Mr . Foster)
Now, at this point , I ' m
going to introduce into the record Plaintiff ' s
Exhibit No. 3. Mr . Savage , Plaintiff ' s Exhibit
No . 3, do you recognize this?
A.
Yes, I do.
Q.
What is Exhibit No . 3?
A.
It appears to be my report of the tasting
at the Coweta County training range.
I'm not sure if
it's complete . And the further testing that was done
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on June 10th, 2009, at Historic Arms's test fire

range.
Q.
Now, d oes your report c o nclude that the
defendant is a firearm?
A.
Actually, my report appears to be
incomplete.
Q.
Are there pages missing? Because that's
all we received.
A.
I think that the last page is missing.
MR. MONROE: That's all I have, too .
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) That's what we received
from the e-mail from your counsel.
It did seem to
end rather abruptly.
A.
Yeah, I think we're missing a page, but I
concluded that i t was a caliber conversion device .
Q.
Is that a firearm?
A.
It can be; sometimes not.
Q.
So is the defendant a firearm?
A.
I believe so.
Q.
You believe so. So did you do anything t o
reflect your belief that it was a firearm?
MR. MONROE:
In what context? The one
about his report?
MR. FOSTER:
Yes.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Once you recognized that
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
it was a firearm, did you r eali z e that the re were

certain require ments i n cumbent upon you?
A.
I recognized i t was a f i rearm because i t
contained a firearm frame or receiver and, agai n, it
was done to address ATF stated concerns. But wh e n
you say what i s incumbent upon me . ..
Q.
Wha t is required upon a manufacture r?
A.
Of a firearm under the NFA or a firearm
under the GCA?
10/21 /2009
1549
RIF
Page 76 of93
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Either one.
A.
If it's a firearm under thQ NFA, i t was
marked accordingly and under thQ NFA after i t was
completed within the end of the second business day.
I effected registration by the completion of an ATF
Form 2.
Q.
Now, you said it has a firearm frame or
receiver. Is that the frame or receiver of a

semi-automatic PK or is it an entirely new frame or
receiver?
A.
It's a frame or receiver, because likQ any
other MAC upper, i t houses the bolt, the bridgQ face.
It's threaded -- it's not thrQadQd, it's forward end,
but i t is the attachment point for the barrel. And
because all MAC uppers contain a portion of the fire
control components, i t can go under the description
161
1
of the definition in 27, C.F . R. 479.11.
2
3
Q.
Now, last week, I believe Mr. Messenger
testified that he did not believe that the defendant
was a firearm; is he incorrect?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
A.
I think so, but all of my experts disagree
with me.
They don't believe, because it's a MAC
upper, that i t can't be a firearm.
I say that we
can't make that assumption.
Q.
So then you disagree with your expert's
conclusion that it's not a firearm?

A.
Yes .
Q.
Okay. I'm just reading ahead. In the
course of the conversation, I let things s ort o f free
flow. There are certain things I was go ing to get t o
later that we've already covered, so there's no
reason for repeating those.
17
18
A.
That's how the defendant was built.
was kind of a free-flowing thing .
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
I understand . So going back to your
report, your report says it's a caliber conversion
device, but it doesn't say specifically, at least
what we can see, that it was a firearm. Is that what
your report actually concludes, that it is a firearm?
25
It
A.
Actually, again, there's a page missing
from this, but I concluded that i t was a caliber
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
conversion device leaving open, I guess, in vain,

hoping that we could work this out and either define
i t as any other weapon under the gadget device gadget
gun clause without the need for further litigation.
Q.
Okay. Now, you said in that report that
the chain, the tens ioning bolt, and the plate

constitute unregistered convers ion parts; is that
correct?
A.
Well, since I didn't -- i t was
unregistered.
Q.
Well, let's strike that.
A.
Q.
All right.
In your report you said that t he chain,
10/21/2009
1550
RIF
Page 77 of93
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the tension bolt, and plate constitute conversion

parts?
A.
It is a conversion device.
Q.
Now, if you were to attach the chain, the
tension bolt, and plate to a semi-automatic PK, would
it make it fire automatically?
A.
That wou1d be irrelevant because the
defendant is not a semi-automatic PK. But
technically speaking, I guess I could in such a way
so that when the bolt went into battery, I could use
the chain to try to -- I would have to modify it.
What you had there, working with what you had, I bet
163
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I could make a machinegun out of that and a

conversion device. So it is possible, certainly.
Q.
You need other parts, though?
A.
I'd have to bend, twist, or modify what
you have there, have it attached to a different point
than what was utilized in the conversion device or
defendant. A shoestring could be a machinegun
according to the ATF. It's not my determination.
Q.
When did you write your report?
A.
Shortly after our test and examination.
Q.
Now, what is the function, what mechanical
function does the chain, tension bolt, and plate
accomplish?
MR. MONROE: In what c ontext are you
asking?
Q.
{By Mr. Foster ) When attach ed to the
defendant.
What does it accomplish?
A.
Q.
Yes.
A.
It defeats the specific design to only
function in a MAC machinegun. Yet, when applied to
other MAC uppers, they act in the identical manner.
They either fire a projectile by the means of an
exp1osive or they fire a projectile by the means of
an explosive repeatedly after releasing the cocking
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
mount.
Q.
When you say they de f e at the functi on o f
the MAC, is that what you're -A.
No. It defeated the specific design
criteria that I employed when I designed the
defendant.
Q.
The se were designs t o prevent it fr om
firing automatically or prevent it fr om firing?
A.
To prevent if from firing unless installed
in a MAC machinequn .
Q.
So if I was t o manufacture an Ml6 and was
to remove a firing pin becaus e that's the way I
designed it to prevent it from firing automatically,
under your theory, then it wo uld no t b e a rnachinegun
be c aus e there ' s n ot a fir i ng pin and it can't e xpe l
pro jectiles, correct ?
No; that ' s not correct .
A.
10/21 /2009
1551
RIF
Page 78 of93
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Why is it not correct?
A.
Well, first of all, a different system and
a different method of operation. You're, again,
comparing apples to oranges, and it's confusing . If
you're saying people do have an ATFS classified
device, which function and are intended to be used in
the same identical manner as the defendant firearm
from an open bolt, with a fixed firing pin, with a
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
feed device attached -- the ATF has clearly

classified them as to not being a machinegun.
They've also classified them as not being a firearm.
But what you're saying is because you
could put that on, it must be a machinagun . Well,
heck, we could put that on regular MAC uppers and
they discharge a projectile by other means of an
explosive, but you guys don't seem to have a problem
with that .
Q.
So do you think we should classify all MAC
uppers as machineguns?
A.
No . No. No. I think they're firearms.
I think if they're installed in a semi-automatic,
then they're a semi-automatic. If they're installed
in a machinagun -- sae, a MAC lower is still a
machinegun even if you didn't .consider it to be the
frame or receiver of a machinegun because it would be
acting in the capacity as a conversion device.
Same thing with the AR-15 lower. I mean,
really, if it's got that third hole, it's obviously
designed and intended solely to convert the upper to
fire fully automatically. It's not the and of the
world. It's not social disorder. It's just a
clarification to get under the definition proper .
Q.
So then you think that MACs actually are
166
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
compri sed of two fi r earms?

A.
Actually, I think some MACs are and some
MACs are not . I think a fully automatic MAC, the
lower is actually -- it's the lower receiver, in a
receiver in that context. I don't think that i t is
the frame or receiver of the machinegun . I think it
acts as a conversion device for the MAC upper because
all MAC uppers, under the testing criteria applied by
Mr . Kingery, would discharge a projectile by the
means of an explosive.
And I think that the reason it's gone on
is it's gone on for four decades of production and
nobody is really wanting to address this because
there's hundreds of thousands of unregistered,
unregulated, unserialized MAC uppers out there.
Q.
So yes or no, is a MAC comprised of two
firearms?
MR. MONROE: Obje ction. Asked a nd
answered.
MR. FOSTER: He d i dn't a nswer .
MR. MONROE: Yes , he did. He sa i d s ome
10/21/2009
1552
RIF
Page 79 of9'.:
22
23
24
25
are and some aren't, and then he gave an

explanation.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Let's move back to
something we were talking about a few minutes ago .
167
5
6
7
If you took a semi-automatic PK, you remove rear butt

stock, you remove the rear trunnion, and you take the
chain, the tensioning bolt, and the plate and attach
it just like ATF did to the defendant, would it fire?
A.
I don't know.
Q.
In theory, would it fire?
A.
Possibly; depending on what components you
used.
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
If it captured the recoil spring and the
bolt, would it fire -- the operating rod and the
recoil spring , would it fire?
A.
Possibly; depending on the components you
used.
Q.
Would it fire automatically without making
other modificati ons to the gun?
A.
Ask that one more time, because what
you're saying is rather confusing.
Q.
If you took a standard semi-automatic
A.
Okay.
PK
Q.
-- you remove the butt stock, you remove
the rear trunnion, and you t ook the chain and plate,
attached it to the rear o f the receiver, wrapped the
chain around it and secured it with a tensioning bolt
just like ATF did with the defendant, if you put a
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
round in the chamber , cock the weapon, and pull the

trigger, would it expel a projectile and reload?
A.
Possibly; depending on the components you
used.
Q.
you mean?
When you say components you used , what do
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Just what I said.
Are we talking
A.
All the semi-automatic components?
I'm saying -I don't know what you're getting at.
I ' m saying a straight semi-automatic PK

with a semi-automatic bolt , the blocking bar
insta lled, the widened left rail , if you remove the
rear trunnion and the butt stock, put the plate in
place just like we did on the defendant, wrap the
chain around it , and secure it with the tensioning
bolt
Q.
All semi-automatic components -- loaded

the weapon, charged the weapon and pull the trigger,
would it function?
A.
I don't believe so.
Q.
Why not?
A.
Because cf the components you omitted . A
semi-automatic PI<M is different than the
fully-automatic PK in that it's striker fired.
The
10/21/2009
1553
RIF
Page 80 of93
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
striker firing mechanism is contained within the butt

stock and concentrically floats over the operating
rod, if you will.
I guess if I fixed the firing pin forward
-- I mean, you're saying no other modifications. I
don't even know that it would chamber a round.
Again, it's a hypothetical. I don't have the things
in front of me, and it's hard for me to give you a
straight answer here.
Q.
So not only would the chain, tensioning
bolt , and plate not allow automatic fire and convert
it into a machine , it wouldn ' t even function with it
on there?
A.
Yeah; but your test is irrelevant because
if you stick it on a MAC upper, it will expel a
projectile by the means of an explosive. And under
what you're trying to say, it does nothing, but when
applied to a MAC upper, it expels a projectile. So,
you know, kindly put, if you're going to compare
apples to apples, let's do it . Let's quit doing
apples to oranges.
Q.
Doesn ' t the defendant have the same design
characteristics as a fully-automatic PK?
A.
Some.
Q.
Does it fire from an open bolt?
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
the MAC
A.
machinegun
confused.
Just like any other MAC upper .

But just like every other PK machinegun?
Well, a MAC -Not the MAC , the PK machinegun . Let ' s put
But the MAC machinegun and the PK

both fire from an open bolt. I ' m
Are you trying to -Q.
I want to know about whether or not PK
machineguns fire from an open bolt and not whether or
n ot MACs do .
A.
Oh. PK machineguns fire from an open
bolt.
Q.
And the defendant fires from an open bolt?
A.
The defendant doesn't fire .
The defendant is designed to operate from
Q.
an open firing?
A.
The defendant is designed to be installed
in a MAC machinegun, and then and only then will it
operate in an open bolt manner, but that's because
the MAC operates in an open bolt manner . The
defendant is specifically designed not to fire.
Q.
You said then and only then . So you ' re
saying that in reality it did not fire automatically
wit h the chain , the plate , and the tensioning bolt?
171
10/2 1/2009
1554
RIF
Page 81 of 9;
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I said how i t is designed.
He defeated
its design features and applied a conversion device.
If I drop in that auto sear you had in those pictures
into a .AR-15 and i t fires automatically, are you
going to claim that the .AR-15 is the machinequn or
the drop-in auto sear?
I mean, you've applied a conversion device
to the defendant, my caliber conversion device, in
order to induce fully-automatic fire. Without it, i t
does nothing unless i t ' s installed in a MAC
machinegun.
Q.
You said earlier today you had previously
submitted the BM-3000 to ATF, correct?

A.
Correct .
Q.
Would t hat BM-3000 function like the
defendant if you were able to retain the recoil
spring? The operat i ng rod?
A.
No, specifically.
Q.
Did ATF not get it to fire just like it
got the defendant to fire by just attaching zip ties
to it?
A.
No . No.
They did i t in a previous
submission, but not in that, no . You had to
disengage the feed system in order to cock it.
There
was no way to induce i t to do that .
That's why they
172
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
had to approve i t when i t was resubmitted.

Because
their testing methodology of zip ties, duct tape, or
bubble gum, or what have you, attached to induce
fully-automatic fire couldn't occur. Because the
only way to cock the BM-3000 was to lift the feed
tray and top cover, grasp the bolt on top, and if i t
wasn't installed in a MAC machinegun, there wa no
way to make i t fire , period.
And they never re-examined i t after that
because i t still is in my custody and has been in the
custody of my company since its last submission when
i t was determined not to be a firearm nor a
machinegun.
The redetermination was done out of thin
air without any examination, re-examination, or
retesting of the BM-3000.
Q.
Did ATF later notify you that they had
classified the BM-3000 as a machinegun .
A.
They said, We hereby reconsider . Yes,
they did.
Q.
Did you have any conversations with anyone
at ATF or FTB regarding this?
22
23
A.
24
25
Yes .
Q.
That was on the phone?
A.
Yes; and in writing, I believe .
Q.
Have you e ver recorded phone calls with
173
l
2
3
ATF?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Whe n?
10/21/2009
1555
RIF
Page 82 of93
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Years ago when I was threatened by

A.
somebody at the ATF.
Q.
Did you record e verybody or just specific
people ?
Just specific people.
A.
Who threatened you?
Q.
A.
Sterling Nixon.
So you on ly recorded phone calls to
Q.
Sterling Ni x on?
A.
Primarily.
Q.
Primarily?
A.
So who e lse did you record phones calls
Q.
with ?
I don't recall.
I haven't done it in
A.
years.
Q.
Why is that?
A.
For the most part, although we disagree,
they're honorable people .
MR . FOSTER : Okay . Tell you what, let ' s
take o ne last break, and then we wi ll wrap this
up.
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{Recess from 4:39 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.)

MR. MONROE: Counsel, as we discussed off
the record, there was a question asked earlier
of the witness regarding his potential c ustomer
for the defe ndant device and production models
of it, and that was objected to on the grounds
of the nondiscl osure arrangement with that
potential c ust omer.
We've agreed t o disclose the informati on
with the understanding that it is confidential
business information. It won't be disclosed to
anyone who doesn't have a need to know with
regard to this litigation. It won't be used for
any purpose outside of this litigation, and the
Government will redact the response from the
transcript before it files it in the case, if
the Government choses to file the transcript in
the case.
MR. VISCOMI: And we have agreed to those
conditions.
MR. MONROE: Do you want to restate the
question?
MR. FOSTER: Sure. I can restate the
question.
Q.
(By Mr . Foster) In October of 2008, you
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
met with the United States Attorney's Office with

Mr. Viscomi, Ms . Goss, and myse l f . That point, you
said that you had a potential client who had seve ral
t housand parts kits who was interested in p urchasing
t he design from you. Who was that client?
A.
Century Arms .
Q.
Century Arms. Fair e nough . At this
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/3256 19/text.htm
10/2 1/2009
1556
RIF
Page 83 of93
8
9
point, I'm going to talk a little bit about PKs

briefly. What does PK stand for?
10
A.
I don't think I can pronounce it.
11
12
13
14
15
Q.
You can butcher it.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It doesn ' t matter.
A.
Po1yomet Kalishnacofna (phonetic], to the
best of my reco1laction.
I know I'm not pronouncing
i t correct1y.
Q.
Okay . Approximately how many countries
produced PK-type machineguns?
A.
Q.
there?
I don't know.
Approximately how many variations are
A.
Q.
Four, that I know .
A.
Yes.
Q.
A.
A11 right.
Four , that you know of . Can you explain

the firing sequence of a PK machinegun?
Please do so.
From the starting point of:
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
F1oating a belt and putting the first round into the

extractor claw, closing the top cover, pulling back
the charging handle, pushing i t back forward . Whan
you fire a PK machinequn, you do press the trigger,
the trigger ho1ds down on the sear. The sear, when
i t pulls down beneath of the sear bent that's in the
bolt carrier, the bo1t carrier and bo1t are under
tension from the recoil spring.
They race forward.
It chambers the round.
The bolt rotates and locks into lugs approximately
62 degrees .
The bolt carrier continues forward. And
since the firing pin is attached to the bolt carrier,
i t indents the primer . The primer is ignited, and in
turn ignites the powder discharging the bullet down
the barrel.
As the barrel passes the gas port, i t
redirects part of the propellant gases to drive a gas
piston on the forward end of the bolt carrier
backwards starting the entire sequence all over
again.
It continues on until the trigger is released
and the sear goes up and than re-engages the sear
bo1t on the bolt carrier.
Q.
I just want to clarify one thing . I think
you misspoke. You said when the barrel passes the
gas port. Did you me an when --
17 7
1
2
A.
Q.
When the bullet passes the gas port.
3
4
5
A.
Q.
A.
No problem.
Okay .
Sorry.
I'm trying to look in my head.
Q.
I just wanted to clarify.
A.
Yes, sir.
9
10
11
I can sea
i t happen.
Q.
You did a good job, though. Can you
e xplain the firing s equence of the defendant when
attached t o a MAC lower?
10/21/2009
1557
RIF
Page 84 of93
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Well, a MAC machinegun or lower receiver
is a very similar sear system. It would be identical
to that of a PK machinegun because the MAC is a
machinegun , the PK is a machinegun, you're usinq the
same bolts, you're using the same ammunition and
caliber. I don't see any distinguishable
differences.
Q.
So the firing sequence is the same?
A.
When installed in a MAC machinegun.
Q.
The method of operation, being a
gas-opera ted piston, is the same principal?
A.
The same principal, but a MAC is what they
call blowback-operated from the factory, the stock
MAC, which can be partially qas operated where the
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
cartridge accesses a piston directly out of the

chamber, but they both fire from an open bolt. They
both operate in a very similar manner.
Q.
I sn ' t the defendant just a new machinegun
based, in part , on a PK?

A.
In looking at or in talking about this

design and your company, you said that both you and
your wife own Historic Arms?
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
No.
Q.
A.
Q.
pro ject?
A.
Q.
project?
A.
Correct.
Do you ever have investors for a specific

Yes.
Do you have any investors f or this
We discussed that earlier.

potential client; and, yes.
There was a
Q.
Have they paid you money up to this point?
A.
Yes.
Who was that?

MR. MONROE: Let's not litter the
transcript with the same name.
{Off the record.)
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) So you were paid by
Q.
that
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A.
Q.
That c omp any .
A.
No .
Okay. Fine. Has anyone else contributed

financially to this project?
Has anyone else contributed to t he defense
of this projec t?
Q.
A.
I' ve h ad an e xpert donate his time.
Q.
But no one has financially agreed to pay
any of your court expense or litigation or attorney ' s
fees o r anything like that?
A.
Q.
I wish .
No.
Going back to the videos we viewed earlier

today, were these shot at the same times that
Mr. Mayo testified that he visited you at your shop
and he test fired the defendant?
10/21/2009
1558
RIF
Page 85 of9~
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
It would have bean in the same time
period, yes.
Q.
Meaning the same day?
A.
I'm not certain . It was within days. I
mean, i t was after the defendant was registered and
just before i t was sent to Firearms Technology
Branch.
Q.
Now, Mr. Mayo traveled to your shop. He
testified it was when the Knob Creek shoot had been
canceled due to flooding; is that correct?
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A.
Q.
I believe so.
Was it that actual weekend that Knob Creek

was canceled?
Yes.
identification . )
A.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster} I have what we're going
to label Plaintiff's Exhibit 4. Mr. Savage, this is
a printout of Knob Creek's we bsite's listing of
specific events f or the April 2008 shoot . Have you
ever seen that before?
A.
No.
13
14
15
Q.
Does that appear t o be a printout of Knob
Creek's events?
16
Q.
What are the dates that that shoot was
scheduled?
17
18
A.
A.
It does appear, yes.
April 11th through the 13th.
20
21
Q.
s o Mr. Mayo had traveled t o your shop on
April the 11th? Sometime between April the 11th and
13, I believe?
22
23
24
25
A.
I believe so.
Q.
What date did you file your ATF Form 2?
A.
I don't recall. Would you like to remind
me or do you have a copy?
19
181
1
2
3
4
5

identification . )
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Hold one moment. This
has been labeled Fla intiff's Exhibit No. 5. Do you
recognize this?
A.
Yes .
Q.
Wha t is that f orm?
A.
Q.
A.
What is the date on that form?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
That is the ATF Form 2.

The 21st of April
08.
Q.
Now, aren't manufacturers required to
register all NFA firearms it manu factures by the
close of the next business day f o llowing completion?
A.
Q.
Correct.
But Mr. Mayo testified that he fired the

firearm earlier some time and what you've now
establish was between the 11th and the 13th.
MR. MONROE: When you say the firearm,
what are you referring to?
10/21 /2009
1559
RIF
Page 86 of93
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
(By Mr. Foster)
The defendant; is that
correct?
A.
Q.
That is correct.
So if the firearm was complete some time

between the 11th and 13th, shouldn't your form have
been filed some time between the 11th and 13th?
182
1
2
A.
The firearm wasn't completed by then. We
were having all kinds of issues.
Q.
But the videos, which we saw earlier, it
fired automatically?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
I don't know the date of those videos.
Q.
Or more importantly, in those videos the
firearm had a short barrel?
A.
That would have been the 19th or 20th
then, because if i t had a short barrel, i t would have
been after I had filed the Form 2.
Q.
So Mr. Mayo was wrong? He was not at your
shop on
A.
No, he was there .
Q.
--
April the 11th?
A.
It probably didn't have a short barrel,
and i t also had lots of issues.
It wasn't completed.
Q.
The videos we saw, when were they shot?

MR. MONROE: Obj ection. Asked and
answered.
THE WITNESS: I told you . I don't
remember the specific day. Since they have a
short barrel, it would have to have been within
either the 20th or after the 21st. I had until
the end of the second business day. There's a
chance it could have been right after it got
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
completed, but just before registration. Or, it

was after registration and prior to submission
of ATF. Somewhere in there.
Q.
(By Mr. Foster) Earlier, didn't you say
that you never had to recut the barrel? You cut it
once and it worked -- excuse me, when it didn't work,
you then modified the gas port?
A.
That is precisely what I said.
9
10
Q.
So then if the firearm was functi oning, it
had a short barrel?
11
A.
It tells me i t has to be near that date,
but we had issues after we cut i t to get i t to
operate right.
I believe I explained that to you,
but the barrel wasn't cut until after the discussion
I think with John Spencer.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Q.
When was that discussion?
A.
Q.
I don't recall the date.
Okay. Was it operating right when

Mr. Mayo fired it?
A.
It was having issues and i t had a
full-length barrel, if I remember. We also had a
registered PK machinegun there and we were going to
do a comparison to find out where the issues were,
10/21/2009
1560
RIF
Page 87 of9:
24
25
but i t was not complete.

Q.
When you say issue, what do you mean?
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
It wasn't working right.
Q.
Failure to feed? Failure to extract?
Failure to
A.
All of the above.
Q.
Failure to fire?
A.
All of the above. Wa ran into issues.
The binding and not doing anything. I ran into just
a multitude of issues .
Q.
But it would expel projectiles?
A.
No.
Not one?
A.
The defendant would not ever expel a
projectile unless i t was installed in a machinegun.
Q.
But once it was installed and you were
working with it trying to get these problems out,
would it expel a projectile and then jam?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Didn't Mr . Mayo say that it worked fine
when he fired it?
A.
Yeah; but if i t didn't have a short
barrel, then i t was just a firearm.
Q.
But you just said that when he was there,
it was having issues.
A.
It was. All right. Restate your
question. I told you i t had issues.
Q.
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
But Mr. Mayo testified in his deposition
that it didn't have issues. That it worked fine and
he actually thought he wanted to buy one if it worked
or if it came commercially available .
MR. MONROE : Are you reciting hi s
testimony o r are you - Q.
{By Mr. Foster) Was that not Mr . Mayo's
testimony?
A.
It sounds familiar . I mean, I'm not
looking at the transcript. I can't tell you what he
said word for word.
Q.
So was his memory i ncorrect?
A.
Possibly.
Q.
Could your me mory be incorrect?
A.
Possibly . I don ' t have the information in
front of me .
Q.
What did you have to do to put the short
barrel onto the defendant?
A.
I didn't have to put anything on . I took
away.
Q.
How d i d you do that ?
A.
How did I make i t a short barrel?
Q.
Yes, sir .
A.
I cut the barrel length to less than
16 inches . I put i t on a lathe and used a multitude
10/2112009
1561
RIF
Page 88 of9~
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of machinist tools.
Q.
As a manufacturer, you're allowed to
remove serial numbers from a frame or receiver from a
completed firearm?
A.
Am I allowed to alter or obliterate a
serial number?
Q.
Yes, sir.
A.
No.
Q.
Did you remove the original serial number
from the semi-automatic PK receiver that you r eceived
from Wiselite?
A.
Well , I destroyed the receiver to use the
portions of i t to make a new firearm.
That's not
altering or obliterating. That's destruction and
using the parts thereof, but I'm not certain because
Wiselite Arms, that particular receiver was -- I
believe may actually still be there .
Q.
Where would it be?
A.
I think in this area right here . I can't
recall, but I don't remember specifically removing
them . But we had changed the design and we had
destroyed the receiver.
Q.
Could the serial number be obscured
underneath the hand guards?
A.
Not underneath the hand guards, no .
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Possibly underneath the metal channel or i t may have

been removed when we cut the floor plate.
I honestly
don't remember .
Q.
Would you object to ATF removing the
rivets to see what ' s underneath the hand guards?
13
A.
No, not at all.
If I can make a
suggestion?
Q.
Yes , sir.
A.
It's simple. You're more than welcome to
remove the rivets. I can always re-pop rivet, but
please don't tear apart the defendant in order to
ascertain under all the weldments and all the changes
to take an X-ray.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
Already done that. If the serial number
was underneath the weld or underneath the hand guard
and it was determined that the receiver was not
prope r ly destroyed, would that be a violation of the
law?
MR. MONROE : Objection. Calls for a legal
conclusion. Answer , if you can .
THE WITNESS : The defendant is
substantially different than a PK semi. And
going off of previous ATF letters , that would
mean a new firearm .
{By Mr . Foster) So yes or no?
Q.
8
9
10
11
12
188
1
A.
I don't know .
https://vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325 619/text.htm
10/21/2009
1562
RIF
Page 89 of93
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q.
You don't know? Okay. At Mr. Kingery's
deposition, you introduced Object 2, which was a
semi-automatic PK receiver that had been modified by
removing the lower shelf including the blocking bar;
is that correct?
A.
Well, there's no lower shelf.
Q.
The lower floor.
A.
The whole bottom portion of the receiver
except for two inches or less in the very front.
Q.
Is Object 2 the same as the receiver or
similar to the receiver you used to construct the
defendant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Didn't ATF inform Historic Arms that it
classified the defendant as a receiver and as a
machinegun on June 10th, 2008?
A.
That's when they wrote the letter.
Q.
But they informed you of this on that date
regardless of whether or not you agreed with it?
A.
I didn't receive it on that date, but
that's when they informed me.
Q.
In a letter dated June 10th, 2008, did ATF
inform Hi storic Arms that it considered that a
receiver of a machinegun?
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i'hat being?
Did ATF not inform you that the defendant
contained the frame or receiver of a machinegun and
they classified the defendant as a machinegun?
A.
Yes .
Q.
When did Historic Arms manufacture
Object 2?
A.
i'he 13th or 14th of September.
Q.
Object 2 is basically identical to the
receiver contained in the defendant?
A.
Yes .
Q.
So Historic Arms , on the 13th or 14 of
September, manufactured what it knew ATF classified
as a machinegun?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you file a Form 2 registering Object 2
as a machinegun with ATF?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You did file a Form 2?
A.
Yes.
Q.
On what date?
A.
The 15th .
Q.
The 15th?
A.
With a disclaimer.
Q.
With a disclaimer?
A.
Q.
190
1
2
3
4
A.
Q.
A.
Yes, sir.
What did the disclaimer say?
I don't have it in front of me.
Do you
have it?
MR. MONROE:
They have the form, and if
10/21/2009
1563
RIF
Page 90 of93
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you don't know, you don't know.

THE WITNESS: I don't know.
MR. FOSTER: Okay. At this time, we have
no further questions.
MR. MONROE: Let me just confer for a
moment.
(Off the record.)
MR. MONROE: No questions .
(Pursuant t o Rule 30(e) of the Federal
reserved.)
1 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Examination
Page
Cross-Examination by Mr. Vis c omi

Cross-Exami nation by Mr . Foster
3
75
I NDEX TO EXHIBITS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff's
Exhibit
1
2
3
4
5
Description
Page
Curriculum Vitae
Photographs
Report
Knob Creek Gun Range April 2008
Schedule of Events
ATF Form 2 dated 04/21/08
48
149
158
180
181
(Original Exhibits 1 through 5 have been

attached to the original transcript . )
192
1
3
4
5
6
STATE OF GEORGIA:
COUNTY OF FULTON:
I hereby c ert ify that the foregoing
10/21/2009
1564
RIF
Page 91 of93
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

case.
This, the 22nd day of September, 2009.
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COORT REPORTER DISCLOSURE

[ORIGINAL ON FILE)
Pursuant to Article 8.8. of the Rules and Regulations
t he deposition, with any party to the litigation,
counsel to the parties or other entity. Such f o rm
prohibited by O. C.G.A. 15-14-37(a) and (b ) .
194
10/21/2009
1565
RIF
Page 92 of93
1
2
3
4
5
DEPOSITION OF LENNIS F. SAVAGE, III/JRN

me on the 22nd day of September, 2009, taken before
7
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Annotated 9-11-30(e}, both of which read in part:
make shall be entered upon the deposition . .. with a
Page No.
Line No .
should read:
Page No .
Line No .
should read :
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No .
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
195
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
6
7
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read :
Page No .
Line No.
should read:
Page No .
Line No.
should read:
Page No.
Line No.
should read:
Page No .
Line No.
should read:
1
2
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19

please furnish same in typewrit ing annexed to this
deposition.
20
10/21/2009
1566
RIF
Page 93 of9:
21
LENNIS F. SAVAGE, III
22
23
24
25

This the
day of
, 20
Notary Public
https:l/vip21 .nationaldepo.com/myfiles/325619/text.htm
10/21 /2009
1567
RIF
/ I
I/
In The Matter Of:
United States ofAmerica v.
One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS, etc.
Max M Kingery
September 16, 2009
American Court Reporting Company, Inc.

52 Executive Park South
Suite 5201
Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2217
(404) 892-1331 - (800) 445-2842
Original File 58954-1.TXT

~1in-l'-Scripf@
1568
"ith \Vorel lndr'
RIF
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1569
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
United States of America v.

One Historic Arms Model S4RCCS, etc.
Page3
tnn:TBD STATBS DISTRICT COURT
POR THB NORTHBRN DISTRICT OP OBOROIA
ATLAMTA DIVISION
CONTBNTS
BXAMINATION
4
5
UNITED STATBS OP IJIBRICA,

Plaintiff,
v .
ONB HISTORIC AJIMS MODBL
54RCCS ?,62 x 54R CALIBBR
CONVBRSION SYSTD" MACRINllG!JN,
SBRIAL NO. Vl,
Defendant .
CIVIL ACTION FILB

llO. l109CVOl920BT
I
)
I
)
I
9
10
The depoition of MAX M.
~INGBRY,
taken
taken on behalf of th Claiaant, puruant to

th atipulationa ird to herein, tba reading
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
and isrning of tba dapoaition being reaervad1
19
taken before Nancy B. Gruber, Certified Court
20
21
Reporter, commancing at 9158 a.m. on thia th
22
16th day of September, 2009, at 52 Executive
23
24
Park south, Suit 5201, Atlanta, Georgia .
25
Page
Bxamination by Mr. Monroe ,
Bxamination by Mr. Viscomi.
199
BXBIBITS
Claimant'
Exhibit No.
1
Claimant' Rpon to Plaintiff 'a

Pirat Interrogator!
Latter and Report from John R. Spencer

to Lan Savage
Photo - Object 2
Photo - Object
APPBAllANCIS OP COUNSBL1
On behalf of Claimant
5
6
4
5
6
G. Jaffray Vicomi, Aaitant U.S. Attornay

U.S. Oapartmant of Juatic
United Stat Attorney' Office
Northam Ditrict of Georgia
75 Spring Streat, s.w., suit 600
(4041 511-6036
jaffray.Vicomi9udoj . gov
9
10
11
Harry R. Potar III, Attorney at Law

Department of Jutica
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Pirrma ' SXploaiV
2600 Century Parkway, N.B.
Atlanta , Georgia 30345
(404) 41?-2696
12
13
14
15
On behalf of tba Plaintiff 1
Alo preaent1
16
Sbarrey savage
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
'lin-l
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
"l riptG
5-A
Photoa - Object 3
l?O
Photo - Object 5
185
BICail String
188
BKail String
190
Nota1 Exhibit 5, marked twice in error, wa

rdiiDatad a 5-A and s-a at th and of tha
dapodtion .
PROCEEDINGS
MAX M. KINGERY,
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
EXAMINATION
BY MR. MONROE:
Q Would you state your name, please.
A Max Mason Kingery.
Q Have you ever given a deposition before?
A Yes.
Q And what were the occasions for that?
A When I was a member of the West Virginia
State Police.
Q What kinds of cases, if there were
multiple ones, were those regarding?
A It was a use of force case following the
arrest of a defendant.
Q So you were employed as a police officer
at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q So you were a defendant in a civil rights
use of force case?
A Yes.
Q Was that the only cx;casion you've given a
deposition?
1570
170
Page4
John R. Monroe, Attorney at Law

9640 Coleman Road
Roawell , Georgia 300?5
(6?8) 362-?650
john.monroalarthlink.nat
SB
Pege2
l
89
16?
(1) Page 2 - Page 4
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Pages
Page 7
A Yes. Well, there were four of those

cases.
3
Q Okay. How did those come out?
4
A Two of them the courts dismissed, and the
s other two the defendants dismissed.
6
Q The defendants dismissed?
7
A I mean the plaintiff. I'm sorry.
a
Q They don't usually have that option.
9
A Yeah. Well, I call them defendant because
10 they were facing criminal charges. That was my part
11 in it. I wasn't directly involved in the
12 allegations.
13
Q Okay. So there were those four civil
14 cases?
15
A Uh-huh.
16
Q And those were all while you were with the
17 State Police in West Virginia?
18
A Yes, sir.
19
Q A few things to keep in mind when giving a
20 deposition. We've got a court reporter here, and
21 she's taking down everything we say, so if you can
22 try to remember to wait until after I finish asking
23 a question before you answer it.
24
A Yes, sir.
25
Q So that she's not trying to record us
is John Monroe. I'm the attorney for the Claimant

in this case, and we're here to take your
deposition. Where do you work?
A I'm employed as a Firearms Enforcement
s Officer with the ATF.
6
Q How long have you been doing that?
7
A About four years.
a
Q We'll come back to what your duties are
9 there. But what did you do before you were with the
10 ATF?
11
A I was with the West Virginia State Police.
12
Q What was your job there?
13
A Well, I had several different jobs there
14 through the years. My last job there I was a
15 detachment commander.
16
Q And how long were you there?
17
A Ten and a half years.
18
Q Okay. What were your duties as a
19 detachment commander?
20
A I oversaw a detachment of troops, read
21 their reports, guided their investigations. I
22 myself conducted regular road patrol and
23 investigations. I was responsible for all the
24 administrative work of the office as far as pay and
25 duty assignments and things of that nature.
Page6
Pages
talking over each other, which looks kind of messy

on a transcript.
3
If I ask a yes or no question, please
4 answer yes or no. If you want to give an
s explanation, that's fine, but answer yes or no
6 rather than moving your head or saying huh-uh or
1 uh-huh.
8
A Right.
g
Q Because that also is difficult to
10 transcribe.
11
A Right.
12
Q If I ask any questions that you don't
13 understand or you want clarification on or anything
14 like that, please say so. Otherwise the presumption
15 is going to be that you understood the question and
16 answered it according to how it was asked.
17
A Right.
18
Q Okay. If you need to take a break, you
19 know, get a drink or use the rest room or anything,
20 just stretch your legs, say so. It's not a
21 marathon. Okay?
22
A Yes, sir.
23
Q All right. Any questions?
24
A No, sir.
25
Q All right. We've met before, but my name
1
Page S - Page 8 (2)
1
2
3
4
Q I know different state police units use

different terminology. What is a detachment? Is
3 that like a geographical area, or what does that
4 mean?
s
A The detachment is the office building or
6 the -- we kind of use it interchangeably. It refers
7 to the building itself. It's also a unit of men
e that are stationed in that area. And each
g detachment covers different size of areas. My
10 covered two counties.
11
Q Okay. Is that how they're organized, by
i2 geography?
13
A Generally there's one per county, but some
l4 counties have two detachments because of the size of
15 the counties. And others have, like mine, one
16 detachment for two counties.
17
Q Okay. Well, what I was asking is if
18 they're organized by county or by geography as
19 opposed to function or something like that.
20
A Oh, yes.
21
Q Okay. So your detachment was responsible
22 for a certain geography and performed all of the
23 functions of the state police within that geography?
24
A Yes, sir.
25
Q And that was two counties? Is that what
1
1571
'1in-l
-~l l'ipf\
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 11 ,
Page 9 1
you said?
1
A Yes, sir.
2
Q And how many officers were in that
3
4 detachment?
4
s
A We had five, including myself, when I
s
6 left.
6
7
Q So you were supervising four other
7
e officers?
e
9
A Yes, sir.
9
10
Q And that was your last position there, you
10
11 said, was detachment commander; is that right?
11
12
A Yes, sir.
12
13
Q How long were you a detachment commander? 13
14
A Only about six months.
u
1s
Q Okay. And you left that position to go to
1s
16 the ATF?
16
17
A Yes, sir.
17
18
Q And what was your previous function at the
lB
19 State Patrol before you were a detachment commander? 19
20
A State police, actually. Previous to that
20
21 I was the assistant detachment commander for another 21
22 detachment. I guess I should say the names of these 22
23 so we don't get those confused.
23
24
Q Okay.
24
2s
A As a detachment commander I was in charge 2s
1
2
3
property, to include firearms. And that gentleman

had an extensive prior history, and it ended up that
the federal part of that case ended up that he was
charged as an armed career criminal. The other one
was a domestic-related incident involving firearms.
Q Okay. So is it fair to say that the
firearms-related investigations, you weren't - let
me reword that. You weren't working in a unit that
was specializing or emphasizing firearms-related
crimes; is that accurate?
A No, no. lfl could -- this might clear
that up with respect to all those further types of
questions with the state police. In West Virginia
state police -- as you've said, many are organized
differently, many different state police.
They're also used differently. And in
West Virginia we conduct-- we're not a highway
patrol. We conduct criminal investigations. And in
many areas of the state we're the primary
enforcement agency for conducting criminal
investigations.
So and each detachment, each individual,
there's no specialization, and there's no detectives
within our state police. Each person is tasked with
investigating whatever type of crime they get
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the Moorefield Petersburg barracks. As the

assistant detachment commander I was in charge of
the -- or the assistant of the Berkeley Springs
detachment.
Q So that's a different detachment?
A An entirely different one.
Q Covering a different geography?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And that were your duties as the
assistant detachment commander?
A Pretty much the same as detachment
commander, just I didn't get the blame if something
went wrong.
Q It sounds like a more desirable job.
A Yeah.
Q Okay. I note in your c.v. you said
something about fireanns-related investigations as
assistant detachment commander. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you explain what that is.
A Well, I was involved in several
firearms-related investigations. One in particular
ended up involving the -- well, actually it was two
that involved the ATF at that detachment, one that
started as simple burglary investigation, theft of
\fi11-l -..,nipt01
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
assigned in the order that it comes to them.

So I've investigated a number of
firearms-related crimes. I've investigated arsons,
murders, sexual assaults, all types of the gamut of
cnme.
Q All right. So what's the jurisdiction,
then, of the state police there compared to like
municipal police departments, county sheriffs
departments, things like that?
A Basically the state police have -- in West
Virginia they're invested with basically all the
authority of any investigating agency within the
state. We can -- we're vested with the authority of
fire marshals, Alcohol Commission investigators,
building code inspectors, tax inspectors,
everything.
Q Okay. What I was really getting at, and
it sounds like there might be some degree of
overlap, did you only work in, like, for instance,
in the unincorporated areas, and the police
departments primarily worked in -A Oh, no. I see what you're saying. No, we
worked within jurisdictions that also had local
police as well and local sheriffs departments as
well.
1572
(3) Page 9 - Page 12
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
United States or America v.

Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
ll
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q So I guess there is some degree of

overlap.
A With respect to, yeah, the more common
types of crimes, yes, a substantial amount.
Q All right. And then before you were well, let me jump back to when you were a detachment
commander. I know you were only there a brief time.
I didn't see anything in your c.v. about
firearms-related investigations there. Is that
because you just didn't happen to have any?
A I just didn't happen to have any.
Q If it had come up, you would have dealt
with them as well?
A Yes, certainly.
Q And then before you were the assistant
detachment commander, what did you do?
A Prior to being the assistant detachment
commander of the Berkeley Springs office I was just
a regular trooper out of the Martinsburg detachment,
which is another county over also. And there I
performed all of the same duties as I would have at
Berkeley Springs. I just didn't have the
supervisory position. I didn't deal with the
administrative side of stuff there. I just dealt
with everything else.
Page 15
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
series, 4006, Remington shotguns, AR rifles,

carbines.
I was a sniper on the sniper team, so I
had a Remington 700 sniper rifle. We were somewhat
familiar with the Glock also as it was a weapon
issued within that state to other law enforcement.
That's it as far as my official duties. I
was familiar with firearms aside from that from a
personal use and collection and stuff like that.
Q Okay. You'd describe yourself as a gun
enthusiast?
A Yes, sir.
Q And how long have you been?
A I've been shooting since I was seven years
old, probably.
Q Let go back to the Marines, then. How
long were you in the Marines?
A I was in the Marines about 11 years.
Q What was the highest rank you attained?
A Sergeant. I ta1ce it back, eight years in
the Marine Corps, 11 years in military service. I
was in the Army prior to that.
Q How did the Marines feel about that?
A They made we feel quite welcome.
Q All right. So you attained the rank of
Page 16
Page 14
2
3
4
6
7
a
ll
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Okay. And that was yet a third

detachment, then; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q So your total tenure there with the state
police, you worked in three different detachments?
A Well, I had short-term temporary
assignments as well in between the two other
detachments.
Q Okay. Then what did you do before you
worked at the state police?
A Prior to that I was in the United States
Marine Corps, and in the Marine Corps also I had
several different duty stations and different
assignments.
Q Let me jump back for one minute to your
assignment as a trooper at the state police. I
think you said in your c.v. you maintained
familiarization with and marksmanship of various
types of firearms.
A Yes, sir.
Q What kind of firearms were those?
A Basically all of the standard police-issue
firearms. Our issue was Smith & Wesson. Initially
it was a Smith & Wesson revolver and then the Smith
& Wesson semi-auto, the 40 series, or I guess 06
Page 13 - Page 16 (4)
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sergeant in the Marines; is that right?

A Yes, sir.
Q Was that your rank at discharge?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you honorably discharged?
A Yes, sir.
Q What were your duties in the Marines?
What was your MOS?
A My last one?
Q Yes.
A We can go in reverse chronologic order.
Q Okay.
A My last MOS was 6465, which is a hybrid
test station technician. Basically it's a
specialized field within aviation electronics.
Q It sounds like that didn't really have any
firearms-related aspects. Is that true? Is that
accurate?
A That MOS didn't. While I was in that
position I also acted as a range coach. In the
Marine Corps we have to qualify on a rifle every six
months to a year. It depends on your unit's
responsibilities. But certain individuals within
that unit will be tasked as firearms coaches to go
with the shooters when they qualify, and I performed
1573
\lin-l -\cri111 k
RIF
Max M. Kingery
Seplember 16, 2009

Page 19
Page 17
that function.
Q And that was on like an Ml4?
3
A Ml6.
4
Q Ml6. What was your MOS before that?
s
A Prior to that it was 0352, which is
6 anti-tank missileman is the title of that.
7
Q Sounds like that had something to do with
e firearms.
g
A Yes.
10
Q All right. What did that consist of?
11
A The MOS is a heavy anti-tank assault
l
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
weapon system, the TOW weapon system. TOW is T-0-W. 12
13
And it at that time was the heaviest portable

anti-tank weapon system in the Marines1 arsenal. I
don't know how to -- basically we were direct
support for the infantry battalion.
When a battalion would deploy - I don't
know how familiar you are with the Marine Corps.
There's three active duty divisions and one reserve
division, and there's three to four regiments in
each of the active divisions. One of those
regiments is deployed at all times, and one of the
remaining battalions of the other regiments that are
not deployed are also either on alert or deployed at
all times.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And where was that? And I'm not
asking for any security breaches.
A There's nothing in my Marine Corps service
that was secret.
Q Okay.
A We deployed to Norway, to Bridgeport,
California. My regiment, by the way, was the cold
weather regiment for the Marine Corps. There was
only one cold weather regiment, and it was lucky us.
So basically we did a circuit every year.
We'd start out in Bridgeport, California, in the
Mountain Warfare Training Center there, and then
from there we would go to Fort McCoy, Wisconsin.
And we would spend one or two months at each
location, and then we would go to Norway and spend
about three months over there.
And when we're at those locations
deployed, my unit in particular, we didn't stay in
barracks. We stayed in tents or in our vehicles or
on the ground, whatever.
Q Did you choose this?
A Yes, I guess I volunteered, but I didn't
know what I was volunteering for.
Page20
Page 18
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That was prior to this war. I'm sure

that's changed substantially now.
Q I think everyone is deployed all the time.
A Yes. But anyway, we were deployed withwe would be assigned a particular battalion that we
would deploy with. Or if the entire regiment was
deployed, obviously our entire platoon would deploy
with the regiment.
We were tasked with maintaining our
weapons systems. We also had to be trained and
knowledgable in enemies' heavy weapons systems,
anti - or armored weapons, light armored and
vehicle weapon systems, their anti-annor weapons
systems, all of our own, what they would call
battalion level and regimental level weapons systems
or weapons units.
When I say weapons, when I'm referring to
weapons, in the Marine Corps you1re either a
rifleman or weapons, and weapons is anything that's
crew-served, takes more than one person to employ
it. So we dealt with everything except artillery
pieces, basically.
Q And it sounds like -- I'm just inferring
from things in your c.v. and from the statements
you've said that you did deploy at some point. Is
'1i11-l
-1,cript~)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Well, one of the things you list in your

c.v. is escorted prisoners. And I wasn't sure. Was
that Marine prisoners, or were you talking about
prisoners of war?
A Prisoners of war. Actually I did escort a
Marine prisoner once, but what I was referring to
was prisoners of war.
Q In Norway?
A No. I hadn't got that far yet. Later my early part of service with the Marine Corps was
with the Second Marine Regiment. That was the cold
weather regiment. l spent about four and 11 half
years with them. They're based out of Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina, and although we deployed all over
the place, that was my home base.
After that I was assigned to the Fourth
Marine regiment, also as a TOW gunner. The fourth
Marine Regiment is stationed out of Okinawa, Japan.
And from there I deployed to first the Philippines.
That was during the first part of Desert Shield, and
we were sent there to fill the vacuum, I guess, of
military forces there.
And then from there we were sent to Saudi
Arabia just prior to the invasion there, and I took
part in that. And it was during that operation that
1574
(5) Page 17 - Page 20
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
United Slates or America v.

Page 21
Page 23
we captured a number of prisoners and escorted

prisoners and others things of that nature.
3
Q Okay. In that role you didn't actually
4 ever fonnally serve like as an MP or something like
s that, though?
6
A No, sir.
7
Q And you mentioned in your c.v. you
a conducted training in small unit armed combat
9 tactics.
10
A Yes, sir.
11
Q And obviously firearms are involved in
12 that. It sounds like that was more emphasized on
13 tactics rather than the firearms. Is that accurate?
14
A As the person being taught, yes. Later I
15 was also an instructor in that same regard. And we
16 were instructing some military personnel who had
17 very little fireanns knowledge, and so we also did
18 the gamut of firearms training with them for light
19 weapons.
20
At that time our general purpose machine
21 gun was the M60 Echo 3 and the SAW. And we also 22 for that particular school they happened to assign
23 us M14's. So we had M14's and M16's, and so we gave
24 some basic training in those weapons to those
25 individuals as well as the tactics to employ them
Q Okay. Does that cover all your Marine

Corps service?
3
A It covers all the service, not all
4 entirely the training. During that service we were
5 tasked with -- I'll back up. During my time with
6 the Second Marine Regiment we were sistered to 42
7 Royal Marine Commando. It's a Royal Marine regiment
a designated as a commando unit from Great Britain.
g
Q That didn't sound American, so I was going
10 to ask.
11
A Yes. They were Great Britain's cold
12 weather regiment. And since we were cold weather,
13 we were sistered to them, and when we deployed to
14 Norway they deployed with us or we with them,
15 however you want to look at it.
16
So we had some common training as far as
17 their weapon systems, which were different than
18 ours. At that time they were just testing out the
19 new Bullpup series of fireanns. They actually still
20 had Bren guns, and they were getting rid of those
21 and going to what we now use to replace the M60, the
22 M240. And they had MILAN anti-tank weapons.
23
Let's see. When I was in the desert at
24 one point we conducted training with, believe it or
25 not, the Somalis. They were friendly to us at that
1
2
Page 22
time, and they used MG3's and G3's.

Oh, in Norway also we worked with the
J anything like that to Marines on using, cleaning,
3 Norwegian National Guard. I can't recall the name
4 field stripping, those kinds of things?
4 of the unit, but they were -- there was a unit there
s
A Yeah. Those individuals weren't Marines.
5 that was sistered to us with the Royal Marines, and
6 They were Anny and Air Force and Navy personnel.
6 they used G3's and MG3's and SIG pistols. And
7 But I've conducted that training with Marines also
7 everything other they used was similar to what we
e as a squad leader.
e used already.
9
What you're talking about is very basic
9
Q Okay. Then before the Marines you were
10 maintenance stuff with fireanns.
10 with the Army?
11
Q Right.
ll
A Yes, sir.
12
A And we did some of that with the other
12
Q Did you transfer from the Anny to the
13 people as well, as well as marksmanship and things
13 Marines, or was there some separation between?
l4 of that nature.
l4
A No. Well, there's --yes and no. I was
15
Q Did you ever have an assignment as a
15 in the Anny. It was the Anny National Guard, so I
16 firearms instructor or anything like that?
16 was there three and a half years. About a little
l7
A Well, as coach, firearms coach, that's
17 more than two years of that was active duty. And I
l8 kind of the role that they fill. But in that
18 had just left active duty and was placed on reserve
19 position you're dealing with people who already know 19 status when I transferred my enlistment from them to
20 how to shoot, so it's not like teaching from the
20 the Marine Corps.
21 ground up. But I have filled that role when I was
21
But that was in -- that was the summer of
1
22 with the state police, teaching people who didn't
22 86, but there was a few months before I went to
23 know how to shoot at all and going from there.
23 boot camp and was actually an active duty marine.
24 There's a different level of training and things you
24
Q What were your duties with the Anny
25 have to watch for with those people.
2s National Guard?
l
with.
Page 24
Q So did you conduct training or classes or
Page 21 - Page 24 (6)
1575
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 25
Page 27
A I was a communications specialist with the

19th Group Special Forces, and our weapons training
3 there was substantially more involved than in the
4 Marine Corps.
s
My primary duty, as it sounds, was with
6 communications. So my particular MOS was as a
7 teletype repair operator, was what I was trained as,
8 and that's probably the last time I looked at a
9 teletype.
lo
But in the Special Forces I was assigned
11 work with the communications equipment that the
12 Special Forces used. A lot of it is top-secret
13 encryption gear and things of that nature.
14
Each member of the Special Forces also has
15 secondary training and often, as in our unit,
16 third-level or third-duty training in weapons,
17 explosives, things of that nature. And we used and
lB were required to be familiar with operation and
19 function and recognition of all types of firearms
2 o around the world that were used by just about any
21 military.
22
Q How long were you the with Anny National
23 Guard?
24
A About three and a half years.
25
Q All right. And what did you do prior to
Q All right. Is there some overlap between

high school and the National Guard?
3
A Yes, sir.
4
Q How did that s
A Between my junior and senior year I joined
6 the National Guard, and I went through basic in the
7 summer between my junior and senior year. And then
e they allowed me to come back and finish high school,
9 and then I went on to my advanced training and jump
10 school and Special Forces school.
11
Q I didn't know you could do that.
12
A You could back then. I don't know if you
13 still can.
14
Q All right. Other than the academy college
15 courses that you took, do you have any other formal
16 education?
11
A When I was with the Marine Corps as an
18 aviation electronics technician I earned an FCC
19 certificate. The title of the certificate - it's
20 been a while -- radio teletype operator's
21 certificate. It's a lifetime certificate. And
22 earning that is the equivalent of having a Master's
23 Degree in electronics engineering, or it was then,
24 not now. They've relaxed some of the regs.
25
But I also had five or six thousand hours
Page 26
that?
A High school.
3
Q Somewhere along the way you picked up an
4 Associate's in applied science degree.
s
A Yes, sir.
6
Q That was I guess while you were with
7 the -e
A State police.
9
Q State police. You were working full time
10 with the state police?
11
A Yes, sir.
12
Q So then you went to school part time or
13 full time at the same time?
14
A No, sir. Our academy is quite long, and
15 that was -- one of the requirements in our academy
16 is that the training is done consecutive with a
17 college training with the university there in West
18 Virginia. So we upon graduation not only are
19 certified as a police officer and all of the other
20 different certificates you get along with that
21 academy; you're also given an Associate's Degree.
22
Q Got you.
23
A Or earn an Associate's Degree.
24
Q I see. It's not free?
25
A No.
1
Page 28
towards a journeyman's electronics mechanic. That

was between my electronics training there and also
3 my electronics training with the Anny Special
4 Forces.
5
Then through that time period I think
6 that's about it. Then when I came in ATF there was
7 quite a bit of extensive training in addition to all
e the other stuff.
9
Q Okay. And do you have any professional
10 certificates or professional licenses?
11
A Yes, the FCC license. Let's see. Oh, I
12 forgot. I was also trained additionally with the
13 state police as an accident reconstructionist.
14 Through the academy, all state troopers are
15 certified as basic traffic investigators.
16
And then I went on my own to earn an
17 advanced investigator's certificate, a
18 reconstructionist's certificate, an advanced
19 reconstructionist's certificate, and a crush
20 collision analysis certificate.
21
Q Those are all while you were at the state
22 police?
23
A Yes.
24
Q All right. Any others?
2s
A There's all the certificates with the
l
1576
(7) Page 25 - Page 28
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 29
Page 31
military for the different training. There's

l
A No.
certificates for weapons.
2
Q I'm sorry. Go on.
3
Q Well, let me -- when I was talking about
A Yeah. I should have made that clear. I'm
3
4 professional certificates I didn't necessarily mean
4 sorry.
5 something like a certificate or documentation of
5
Q That's all right.
6 having completed, you know, a course or a seminar or
6
A The same thing with imports,
7 something like that. I was talking about something
7 firearms-related import items, both for
8 classification as what they are and as for their
a like -9
A More along the lines of college?
9 importability with respect to imports.
10
Q -- a certified something something
10
Occasionally we're asked to classify items
11 something kind of certificate.
11 by domestic manufacturers. They'll submit firearms
12
A Off the top of my head, I think, what I
12 or firearm items. We also provide training and
13 can remember right now, that's about it.
13 assistance to other federal, state, and local
Q Okay. And then you didn't mention any
14 agencies, firearms-related training. I'm an
14
15 professional licenses. Well, I guess I'm not clear.
15 instructor down at FLETC. I've taught NEXUS
16 Do you consider the FCC license a professional
16 classes, NEXUS being the origin of firearms.
17 license?
17
Q Let me stop you again for a second.
18
A Yes, it is.
18 What's FLETC?
19
Q Okay. Any others?
19
A Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
20 FLETC.
20
A Well, the reconstructionist's certificate
21
21 I would say is a professional license in a way.
Q OH. Is that here in Georgia somewhere?
A I'm not stationed here. I'm a guest
22 Having that qualification makes you an expert or
22
23 eligible to be declared an expert in court on those
23 instructor. I'm flown down here whenever there's an
24 matters where -- I don't know how much you've dealt 24 agent class or an inspector class.
Q But you're talking about the center here
25 with collision type cases.
25
l
Page30
Q I avoid them.
Page 29 - Page 32 (8)
in Georgia?
A Yes, sir. Yeah, I guess there's three
3 FLETC centers, but I'm a guest instructor at the one
4 here. I'm not a full-time instructor there.
s
Q All right. And then what was the other
6 thing you just said before I interrupted you?
7
A NEXUS?
8
Q Yes. You said that's fireanns origin. Is
9 than an internal system, or what is that?
10
A I guess not internal specifically to ATF,
11 because we instruct also other federal agencies and
12 state agencies with that training.
13
But basically not the historical origin of
14 firearms but the origin of particular firearms, how
15 to determine the origin of a particular fireann,
16 because often in many cases, especially GCA type
17 firearm cases, in order for the government to have
18 venue of that or jurisdiction over that case, they
19 have to show that the firearm has moved in
20 interstate commerce. And determining where it came
21 from and where it is now is how you do that. So -22
Q I'm sorry. Go ahead.
23
A Go ahead.
24
Q Well, when you're talking about the
25 origin, are you talking about like specifically
l
A Well, reconstructionists are -- they can

3 be highly paid for their expertise, so I would say
4 that's a professional certificate.
s
Q Okay. Anything on the order of like a
6 license to practice Jaw or accounting?
7
A No.
8
Q Or anything like that? Okay. All right.
9 So then for the past almost what, five years you've
lO been with the ATF? Or is it just over four?
11
A Just over four.
12
Q All right. And what are your duties
13 there?
A I'm a firearms enforcement officer, and my
14
15 duties are I guess several. I examine evidence
16 submitted by agents both for their criminal
17 investigations and their investigations on behalf of
18 other agencies. I examine items that are submitted
19 for importation requests or -- excuse me.
20
Q Let me stop you for a second. I don't
21 mean to interrupt. When you talk about evidence and
22 you're talking about items, these are all
23 firearms-related; is that right?
24
A Yes.
25
Q You don't work in other areas of the ATF?
2
Page 32
American Court Reporting Company, Inc,
1577
\lin-l
-~cript lo
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 33
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
u
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 35
where geographically the parts came from or the

firearm came from or both?
A Sometimes both. Primarily we're
interested in the fireann itself, the receiver
portion of the fireann or a complete fireann.
Q All right. Do you have any other duties
with the ATF?
A Yes.
Q What are they?
A Well, we also, each FEO gets his turn as
duty officer for one week. Basically the duty
officer answers the phone. And any questions that
come in from the general public or from
manufacturers when they don't want to write in a
question, they just want a quick answer or
something, they might call in. And we would answer
the phone and answer those questions.
Also, as I said, law enforcement might
call in and have a question that we would answer.
And that would be the duty officer is usually the
first person to get that and answer that.
And aside from - well, there's a wide
variety of firearms type classes that we give also,
not just NEXUS. But there's a wide variety of
fireanns classes that we give. And I can go into
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
lO
ll
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q And do they all - well, perhaps other

than Mr. Vasquez, do all the rest of the FEO's have
all the same duties that you do or some of the ones
that you would describe specific to you?
A The only one specific to me is cleaning up
the shop. One of the others cleans up the break
room and things of that nature.
Q So is maintaining the SIMS not peculiar to
you either?
A I'm sorry, yeah. That's more particular
to me also, yes.
Q And what does that consist of? What do
you do for that?
A Well, now I don't really have to do
anything with it other than make sure that its
calibrations are up to date.
Initially, when we first got the system, I
worked with the manufacturer of the software to make
sure that it was producing accurate results and that
the fonnat of the reports were what we required.
MR. VISCOMJ: Could somebody define SIMS?
THE WITNESS: Yes. SIMS is an
abbreviation for sound impulse measurement
system.
MR. VISCOMI: Thank you.
Page 34
Page 36
1
those in more detail in a minute. But one of my
2
other duties is maintaining the silencer testing
3 system that we have and the testing protocol.
3
4
4
Q Is that the SIMS?
5
5
A Yes, sir. And I guess I have-- a
6 secondary duty to all that is I'm responsible for
6
7 cleaning up our shop. We have a machine shop, and I
7
a
e get to clean up after everybody's been in there and
9 not cleaned up after themselves.
9
10
10
Q Any other duties?
ll
A No. That covers about everything we do
11
12 there.
12
13
Q All right. And how many other FEO's are
13
l4 there?
l4
15
A Let's see.
15
16
16
Q And it's not a quiz. Mr. Vasquez, I
17
l 7 think, testified there were eight besides yourself
18 and including himself.
118
19
A Yeah, I think that's about right. There's
19
20
20 eight. I'm trying to think. Yeah, eight including
21 our newest member.
21
22
Q Okay. And that also includes Mr. Vasquez?
22
23
A Yes.
23
24
Q So there are nine of you all together?
24
25
25
A Uh-huh.
\Iinl -"il'ript<J
THE WITNESS: And it's a

computer-controlled sound measurement system.
BY MR. MONROE:
Q And you use that to measure the
effectiveness of silencers?
A Yes, sir.
Q You don't certify the effectiveness of
commercially available silencers, do you?
A Not for manufacturers. I have been
involved in the testing of silencers for the United
States Marine Corps for selection process, what
silencer they were going to select for one of their
sniper systems.
Q No, I was just speaking in conjunction
with the SIMS system. I guess it's not really clear
to me why you would care how effective one is. If
you determine that it's a silencer, does it really
matter if it works very well or not?
A Legally speaking, no, it doesn't matter
how effective the silencer itself works. But it's
important, at least to us, that our testing methods
are the most accurate possible testing systems
available.
Q So you use it primarily just to document
the fact that the device causes some sound
1578
(9) Page 33 - Page 36
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 37
suppression?
A Yes, sir.
3
Q And then you measure how much it does?
4
A Yes, sir.
Q You use it primarily for evidentiary
s
6 purposes?
7
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. So do your duties with regard
e
9 to examining evidence, classifications, looking at I
10 think you said import items, do those duties require
11 you to make observations, gather information about
12 devices, and then apply the laws to them?
13
A Yes, sir.
14
Q Do you have any experience designing
15 firearms?
16
A Designing, no.
17
Q Manufacturing firearms?
lB
A I have made some, yes, sir.
19
Q What have you made?
20
A Two Stens, an AK, a silencer. That's it.
21
Q Okay.
22
A I finished machine work on two other AK's,
23 two, three AR type firearms. I think that's it.
24
Q Now, the Stens and the AK that you
2s manufactured, was that assembly of generally
1
Page 39
Q Okay. And then the silencer, what was

involved in manufacturing that?
3
A Just some -- well, I wouldn't even call it
4 machining, just fitting, just assembly of parts.
s Some of them had to be ground a little bit to fit,
6 but that was very simple.
7
Q Was that based on some existing design?
e Or I guess you said you hadn't designed any
9 firearms. Was it a parts kit to make a silencer, or
10 did you follow some design you already had? Or how
11 did that work?
12
A It was a design someone else had already
13 come up with, yes.
14
Q And those four devices, you made those for
1s particular cases? Or what were those for?
16
A Both for training and for cases.
17
Q Okay. When you say for training, you mean
18 like just for self-training?
19
A The experience of the process of
20 manufacturing and assembling, how the firearms
21 function, that sort of thing.
22
Q All right. And then other than those
23 four, I think you said you did something else that
24 didn't quite rise to the level of manufacturing.
25
A Right. There were three AR firearms that
l
Page38
available parts, or did you make the parts? When

1
you manufactured them, what did you do?
2
3
A I had -- this was nil done under
3
4 government service, so I didn't need a license for
4
5 it.
5
&
Q I understand.
6
7
A But I assembled a parts -- well, I had a
7
a parts kit, obtained a parts kit and steel tubing and
a
9 cut the tubing, cut all the slots and so forth for
9
10 the components and mechanisms and put it together, 10
11 assembled it into a working firearm.
11
12
12
Q So does that mean you had to do some
13 machining, it sounds like?
13
14
A Yes, sir.
u
15
Q And was that for all three, the two Stens
15
1& and the AK?
16
17
A Yes, sir. There was machining involved in
17
is all of them, some welding, mostly just machine work. 1B
19
Q Have you had any training in machining or
19
20 welding?
20
21
A None in welding, well, I guess no formal
21
22 training in welding. I had some formal training in
22
23 machining in high school in shop class, nothing
23
24 where I received a certificate or anything like
24
25 that, not to that level. But nothing formal.
25
1
Page 37 - Pnge 40 (10)
Page40
were not completely finished. And I finished

drilling the pivot pinholes that allowed the
installation of the fire control components.
Q And those were just for some AR's?
A All of them were full auto, the AR type
firearms, yes.
Q Was that also with your work at ATF?
A Yes, sir.
Q If you were making full auto ones, it
probably was. Do you hold any ATF licenses?
A Not presently.
Q Have you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What have you held?
A I had a federal firearms license as a
dealer.
Q When was that?
A A long time ago. Actually I got it just
prior to going into the Marine Corps, and I held it
for a time while I was in the Marine Corps.
Q And then what happened to that?
A I just Jet it expire.
Q Any particular reason?
A I wasn't interested in actually selling or
dealing in firearms. I was more interested in
1579
'lin-l -'iuipt I<
RIF
United Stutes or America v.

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collecting fireanns and purchasing firearms.

And so when I had initially gotten the
license, at that time I wasn't aware there was a C&R
license. I purchased the license so that I could
buy my own fireanns more than to sell, because being
with the Army and then later with the Marine Corps,
I traveled around quite a bit, and you can't buy out
of state without a license.
And then the firearms laws changed also
not long after that. And I guess the enforcement or
requirements in the licenses was more geared towards
what the license were titled for, which was actually
dealing. And since I wasn't interested in dealing,
I just went ahead and let it expire.
Q It became somewhat impractical to have an
FFL when you weren't actually being a dealer?
A Right.
Q And C&R, you were saying C&R; right?
A Yeah, I'm sorry. That always kind of runs
together. C&R is curio and relics license.
Q So I'm inferring you never really had a
business where you dealt in firearms.
A I sold a handful of fireanns during that
time period and maintained the records as a dealer.
You know, you're supposed to maintain records, and I
Paga43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Thousands. I can't give you an exact

number.
Q Would you say it's many thousands?
A No, not many thousands.
Q But more than a thousand?
A Yes.
Q Would you say in terms of the amount of
time you spend on your different duties that you
described at the ATF, is classification the large
majority of your time?
A No -- well, yes. Yes, I guess when you
say large majority, that would fit. Every firearm
we come across, we're classifying in a manner of
speaking. But as far as an official classification
that we've been asked to do, I would limit it to
that thousand or so.
If we expand that to everything I've
viewed and then used during instruction and things
of that nature, which are other parts of my duties,
it could go into 30,000, I guess.
Q Well, let's try to make distinction there.
I mean, I understand that when you have a profession
your mind is working on that all of the time.
A Right.
Q So you see a gun and you say oh, that's a
Page42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
turned those over when I went out of business. As

far as an actual profit business, it wasn't a profit
business.
Q Have you ever had any kind of business
related to firearms?
A Other than that?
Q Yes.
A No, sir.
Q All right. Let's talk a little bit about
testing and classification of firearms. You
probably consider those two different functions.
Is that right?
A They're kind of melded. They overlap.
Q Okay. Well, I'm just going to call it
classification, and you can understand that that
includes the steps you take to get to the final
product. Okay?
A All right.
Q All right. How many fireanns would you
say you've classified? Well, let me step back. Had
you done anything like classification prior to your
work at ATF?
A No.
Q All right. Now, how many firearms would
you say you've classified?
\rln-l -~lriptO.
Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking

about when you, either from a manufacturer, from an
agent, or from nn internal FTB requirement somebody
actually asks you to classify a firearm.
A Okay.
Q So limit our discussion to that.
A All right.
Q And that's the number you were talking
about that's somewhat over a thousand?
A Yes, sir.
Q So would that be something that you spend
the large majority of your time on?
A Yes, sir.
Q So would that mean that at least once a
day you're working on that activity?
A When I'm in the office, yes, when I'm not
away teaching or something.
Q You're not classifying firearms right now.
A Exactly.
Q Or at all today.
How long after you started working there
-- well, let me start over again. I assume you had
-- I mean, you had some firearms experience before
you got to the ATF. But if you hadn't had any
classification experience, I presume there was a bit
1580
(11) Page 41 - Page 44
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page45
Page 47
of a learning curve and some training required

l
A Right.
before you could begin. Is that accurate?
2
Q And what did the I'm sure there were a
A Yes.
3 lot of things involved. Can you give me an idea of
Q Do you know how long after you started at
4 what the training and all the information that you
s ATF you actually began doing classifications, like
s got from primarily Mr. Curtis consisted of?
6
A Yes, sir. I was required to write a
6 you'd received enough training and learned enough to
7 be able to that do that on your own?
7 series of papers. I was given a list of firearms,
8 and I was required to write a paper on each of those
e
A Well, I began being required to make
9 classifications very soon after I was there, but
9 firearms.
10 that was during the training process. On my own,
lO
So during the course of writing that paper
11 probably seven or eight months after I'd been there.
11 I would have to research that firearm. I would be
12
Q So then before you started, and that would
12 given or go back to our reference collection and
13 have been sometime in early 2006?
13 obtain samples of those or examples of those
14
A 2005, late 2005, I believe. Was it?
14 firearms and examine them, disassemble and
1s reassemble. We have a fairly extensive library
15
Q Well, I don't know. Your c.v. says that
1
16 you were with the state police until July 05, and
16 available to us, and I would use those resources to
l 7 familiarize myself with that firearm and its
17 then it just says current at the ATF.
18
A Okay.
18 history, design, development, makers, countries it's
l9
Q I'm assuming you started with the ATF also
19 made in, used by, the whole scope of that particular
20 in July of2005.
20 firearm, whichever one it might be. Then I would
21 put that on paper in a report.
21
A Yes, sir. Oh, you mean when I started
22 doing that on my own?
22
Q Before you go on, let me ask one question
23
Q Correct.
23 about that. It sounds like when you say they
24 gave you a firearm, it sounds like they named one.
24
A Okay. Yes, I'm sorry. I misunderstood.
25
A There's a standard list of firearms that
2s
Q All right. So that would have been
l
2
3
4
Page46
sometime in the first quarter of'06, I guess.

A Yes, sir.
3
Q All right. So then during that last half
4 of '05 and the very first part of'06 it sounded
s like you were saying you were doing classification
6 then, but -
7
A Under very close supervision.
a Q Close supervision, okay. How did your
9 primary training in that work? Did you have one
10 person who was basically assigned to show you the
11 ropes?
12
A Yes, sir.
13
Q And who was that?
14
A Mike Curtis.
15
Q Is he another FEO?
16
A Yes, sir.
17
Q Is he still with the 18
A Yes, sir. He's one of the other senior
19 FEO's.
20
Q Okay. So during that six or seven months
21 how many firearms would you say you classified?
22
A I don't know. Just a handful, I would
23 say.
24
Q So of more than a thousand or so, not many
25 were during that early training period?
1
Page 45 - Page 48 (12)
Page48
we were required to examine and provide reports on.

Q But it was not and it sounds like they
3 didn't actually hand you a firearm. They just named
4 one or a list of firearms, and then to the extent
5 you thought it necessary to obtain one, you went off
6 and did that on your own.
7
A My first one I was handed, so in the
a process of showing me where to find them and so
9 forth, yes. But I went out and got all the rest.
10
Q Here's a list of firearms, have at it?
11
A Not quite that haphazard.
12
Q I didn't mean to imply that it was,
13
A Yeah. I would test myself with going
14 through the list in which order I was more
is comfortable doing, as long as I completed the entire
16 list. I would go get that firearm. I was shown how
17 to disassemble it and assemble it, what its
18 classification was, why.
19
And then in some of them that I wasn't
20 that familiar with the function of, Mike would show
21 me more of the function of it, hands on, and then I
22 would go and research it myself as well.
23
Q So when you said you were shown how to
24 disassemble it and reassemble it and how it was
25 classified and why, would that information have been
l
1581
\Jin- l -1.,u ipt h
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page49
1 primarily from
2 other-3
Mr. Curtis, or was there some
A Not primarily. I also, some of them I
4 would -- I've always been very good mechanically on
s figuring how things work, and so some of them I was

6
already familiar with with my training in Anny and
7 in the Marine Corps. And others weren't too
e difficult to figure out on my own.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Paga 51
Those that I couldn't figure out on my own

and that Mike didn't help me with, as I said, we had
an extensive library, and it includes technical
manuals on various firearms and covers some of the
once on the list. So there would be step by step
directions in those manuals, how to assemble,
disassemble, diagrams and things of that nature.
Q All right. Sorry for the diversion.
A That's all right.
Q So that was one phase of training you
received, was you got a lot of homework A Yes.
Q -- assignments. What else did you do?
A Then I was also tasked with -- some of
those papers included the GCA and the NFA itself.
Q Excuse me, but by GCA you mean Gun Control
Act?
firearms museums.
2
Q That's my kind of job, where you get paid
3 to go to a museum.
4
A Part of my job is to learn as much as I
5 can about firearms.
Q Alt right. Anything else that your
6
7 initial training consisted of?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Well, I was also thrown into the duty

position to answer a bunch of questions. That's a
good way to learn, is to have a bunch of people ask
you questions and try to find the answers for them.
So I did that. That was also again done under
supervision. The first two times I had the duty I
was supervised by Mike Curtis. That's about it.
MR. MONROE: Okay. Well, why don't we
take a break before we go on.
(Deposition in recess from 11 :06
to 11:16a.m.)
BY MR. MONROE:
Q Before we took the break I think you
described your training you had when you first
started at ATF, and I want to try to kind of
correlate that to what's on your c.v. There are lot
of instances where there's a date and then the name
of some kind of firearm and then parenthetically a
Page SO
Page 52
A Yes.
2
3
4
Q And by NFA you mean National Fireanns Act?
2 FEO's. Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay.
A And I was given classes on both of those
4
Q Is that -- like if I pick one at random
5 here, August 11th of '05, B.A.R., Mike Curtis, what
6 both by Mike Curtis and by Rick Vasquez.

7
I was also required -- even though I was
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fairly familiar with range procedures, we were still

required to be shown range procedures and range
safety at our office. And Adam Galbraith was the
individual who showed me that and signed off on me
that I had done that.
Q He's another FEO?
A He's another FEO, yes, and that's his
ancillary duty, is the range.
I also attended the basic firearms NEXUS
class, which is itself quite extensive in the topics
it covers with regard to firearms . It also goes
into the definitions in the GCA and NFA. It talks
about different characteristics of firearms, goes
into markings, marking requirements.
Let's see. What else? I was required to
do tours of ammunition factories and firearms
manufacturers' facilities. I was also sent to
armorer schools. I toured a couple of museums,
'Iin-l -~aipt~
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
2-l
25
person, whom I think you named most of them as other

A Yes, sir.
would that mean?

A That was a paper that I did on the B.A.R.,
and Mike Curtis reviewed it.
Q Okay. So for each of those kind of entry
where there's a date, a firearm, and another FEO,
that's the date you would have done one of the
papers that you were describing?
A For the majority of them, yes. There may
be some mixed in there where there were classes I
gave. I think those would just have a date on the
end of it, not another name.
Q So it looks like most of those took place
in August and September, maybe a little bit on into
November and December of '05. So that would have
been during that initial training period you
described?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. I was just gathering or kind
of inferring from your description of what you did
that that might have been a multiple-day endeavor
1582
(13) Page 49 - Page 52
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 55
Page53
for some of the those firearms. Is that true?

A Yes.
3
Q So would that date represent like when you
4 finished?
5
A Yes.
6
Q Is this a comprehensive list?
7
A Yes, I believe it is.
s
Q I don't see, unless I'm missing it, an
9 entry for a PK. Is that accurate?
10
A Yes.
11
Q Okay. I thought I saw an entry for a MAC,
12 but now 1 don't. November 21st of'05, MJ0/11 type,
13 that would be for MAC's?
14
A Yes.
15
Q And then you also mentioned that you did
16 some factory tours -17
A Yes.
lB
Q -- of manufacturers. Can you describe
19 what those consisted of.
20
A Well, we would just tour manufacturers'
21 facilities. They would go through the -- they would
22 have a representative, obviously, there with us
23 leading us through the tour, showing us their
24 facilities, the machines that they have that they
2s make use of, the various uses and processes of those
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Yes, sir.
Q I see Smith & Wesson revolver, Smith &
Wesson pistol, FNH. Is that comprehensive, or am I
missing any?
A There should be more than that. There's
SIG, Glock.
Q I see factory instructor for Glock. Is
that different from factory tour?
A No -- yes. That's the armorer's course at
Glock.
Q Oh, okay. All right.
A And many of those armorer's courses also
end with a factory tour. Usually what they give the
class is just a real quick walk-through, and then
myself or usually -- I've never gone to one of these
classes alone. Usually they'll send two or three
people at a time. Just for budget reasons it works
out cheaper that way. But we would often get a
separate tour or a more extensive tour than that of
the normal that they give the students at the end of
each class.
Q So the ones that are labeled factory
instructor -- I guess I'm still not clear -- is that
an armorer course?
A It was an armorer's course given by the
Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
machines, how they're put to use with respect to the

firearms that that manufacturer makes. Basically
they would go through, from block of steel to
finished product, all of the different stages and
steps of the manufacturing process, how it was made
for their product.
And then they would show us -- usually
most manufacturers have a collection also of
fireanns that they've made over the years that they
may not currently be producing, but they have
produced in the past, and they'll show us those.
Q So are those - and I don't mean to try to
simplify it or anything -- but is that more or less
like a show and tell kind of thing? Is there any
hands-on features to that?
A As far as us working in the manufacturing,
no. It's mostly show and tell, yes.
Q And how long are those, generally? Is
that an all day thing or an hour or two kind of
thing?
A Oh, much more than an hour. I've never
had one last more than a whole day but most of the
day, I would say.
Q And then you also mentioned you'd been to
some armorer courses.
Page 53 - Page 56 (14)
Page 56
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
factory instructor, yes.

Q Okay. So does that mean the Smith &
Wesson ones were given not by a factory instructor?
A No. They were also by a factory
instructor, but I just didn't write factory
instructor on it.
Q Okay. You just didn't use the same
notation?
A Right.
Q So that means you've also had SIG, H&K,
and Glock armorer courses?
A Yes, sir.
Q So are you -- I forget. Is it a
certification to be an armorer for these different
kinds?
A Yes.
Q So you are a certified armorer for these
four or five different ones?
A Yes, sir. I think my Glock one is up for
renewal, but yes, I should be current in all the
others.
Q How long, on average, would you say it
takes to do a classification from the time it shows
up on your desk until the time you're finished?
A It varies substantially. It depends upon
1583
\lin-l -~< ript11<
RIF

Max M. Klngery
September 16, 2009
Paga 57
1
2
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the particular firearm, what may be involved in it

and, during this period of time of my employment,
what level of experience I had with that firearm.
Many firearms I can do -- I had a criminal
case recently where I was able to look at as many as
30 firearms in one day and make classifications on
all 30 of them, because they're firearms that I had
seen hundreds of times before.
In other instances where we would have
something like a unique firearm, then it might take
a bit longer, a couple days, even.
Q So I guess I'm inferring from your last
comment there that some fraction of the firearms you
get for classification are A The same things I've seen before.
Q Well, are they generic, unmodified,
commercially manufactured firearms?
A Yes.
Q Under what circumstances would you get
those for classification? Is it because whoever
sent it to you wasn't sure, didn't know what it was?
A Sometimes we get that. As I said before,
we get lot of domestic manufactured firearms. And
some manufacturers might be a new manufacturer
making - to them it's a new gun, but it's just a
Page59
2
3
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
us. It's the importer giving it to us.

Q Okay.
A But with that in mind, I would say
probably 40 percent of the firearms I look at,
maybe.
Q And that would include -- well, when you
talk about a manufacturer, you're also including
what I'll term homemade manufacturer, like if I make
something in my garage?
A Yes. I don't get as many of those. I get
very few of those, but yes, sir.
Q You don't get many of those?
A No. Unlicensed manufacturers?
Q Right.
A Who are making new designs?
Q Right.
A I don't get that many of those. Now, I
get new and unique designs, but most of those that I
get are from licensed manufacturers.
Q You don't get many people wanting to know
if they can put a 2-liter bottle on the end of their
pistol and shoot that way?
A As I said, with AR's, we get more of that
with AR's, but no. Generally speaking, no.
Q And of the --
Paga 58
1 copy of a same old design someone else has made.

2 And they may send items to us.
3
The most popular right now since Barack
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Obama became president is AR's, and daily we get

several AR's sent in to us at different stages of
manufacture. And would we classify this as a
receiver or as a blank is usually the question.
So we might get that. There's also
instances where I get - as I said, I also do
evidence cases, and in most of those it's possession
cases. It's not a person making guns. The vast
majority of those are someone who has a gun that
someone else already made.
And again, those are most often designs
that are already in existence and commonly known.
Some are straight factory; some have been modified.
Some of the modifications might be new to that
person, but they're a common type of modification
that I would be familiar with. So it's the whole
gamut, basically.
Q Okay. How much of your classification
work would you say is from manufacturers?
A I would include importers in that as well,
because often those are new manufactured as well,
although it may not be the manufacturer giving it to
Page60
1
A Let me back up. I'll say this, with
2 physical samples. Now, individuals we do get often
3 a large number of letters where they describe
4
something, and we'll answer questions with those.
5 But you can't make a classification just off of a

6 description in a letter.
7
Q Well, Jet's talk about that a little bit.
Who handles -- I assume there's a decent volume of

that kind of inquiry.
A Yes.
Q Who handles those?
A What do you mean?
Q Who within ATF handles those? Is that an
FTB function?
A Yes.
Q And is it the FEO's that do that?
A Yes.
Q And then you said that you can't make a
classification based on a description?
A I won't make an official classification
just based on a description alone, no. It's our
policy to require a physical sample be submitted for
a classification to be made.
24
Q Is that a new policy? Well, let me ask
25 you, do you know how long that's been a policy?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1584
(15) Page 57 - Page 60
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 61
Paga 63
A It has changed since I've been there. I

2 know when I first came there, there were FEO's who
3 made classifications just on drawings or
4 descriptions. I've never made any. I believe that
s policy has been in effect for probably about three
6 years, I'd say, maybe a little bit more. It wasn't
7 long after I got there that they put that into
e effect.
9
Q Okay. So if you don't make an official
10 classification, what do you do with those? If
11 somebody writes in and says can I take my, I don't
12 know, AR-15 and do X to it, if you can't do an
13 official classification, what kind of response do
14 they get?
1s
A If it's something that's similar to
16 something that's already been done before, I might
17 say -- I would answer them basically as best as I
lB could without being very specific. And I would
19 always -- at the end of the letter I would include a
20 paragraph or sentence that would state that an
21 official classification cannot be made without
22 submission of a physical sample. And I would give
23 them an address and directions on how to get it to
24 us.
25
But as an example, I would say like we get
you'll tell them that.

2
A Yes.
3
Q But if they want to do something that they
4 think might be legal, you won't tell them that
5 without a sample?
6
A I would say that it might be. If it's
7 legal or I believe it would be legal, I would say it
e may be, but I can't tell you for sure without having
9 the sample to examine.
10
Q Okay.
11
A If I know definitely it's illegal, I'm
12 certainly going to tell them it's definitely
13 illegal, because we don't want them doing anything
14 illegal either. And they don't want to either.
15 That's why they write us. So we try to answer every
16 question that comes in as best we can. We don't
17 want to just not answer a letter or leave someone
18 hanging.
19
Q So I guess those people who want to do
20 something that you are pretty confident would be
21 illegal, they do get a classification, just perhaps
22 not one they'd like?
23
A In a manner of speaking, yeah, not one
24 they like. We don't always make people happy with
25 our decisions, but we do the best that we can for
Paga62
a lot of questions on short-barreled rifle versus

pistol. And again I'll go back to AR firearms,
3 because they're real popular right now. And this
4 comes up with a lot of different weapons that's been
5 made in both configurations, as pistol and rifle,
6 MAC's, there's been some Uzi's, AR's, AK's. But
7 anyway - shotguns.
A person will ask us, for instance, ifl
B
have
an
AR can I take the shoulder stock off and
9
10 make a pistol out of it. And I would say no. Under
11 the definition, it's under -- a weapon made from a
12 rifle, if it's within these dimensions or without
13 the stock, it would be a weapon made from a rifle.
14 If it's less than 26 inches overall length or has a
15 barrel length of less than 16 inches, it is a rifle.
Or they might ask us can I take a pistol
16
17 version of an AR and make it into a rifle, and we
18 would answer those questions. And then if they want
19 a specific classification when they've done that, we
20 tell them they need to send that in to us, and we
21 would give them a classification on that in writing.
22
Q So it sounds like maybe you're still
23 saying that wouldn't be a official classification.
24 But it sounds like if somebody suggests doing
25 something that you're confident would be illegal,
Page64
them.
Q Okay. And then your c.v. also has a

section entitled courses provided as FEO instructor.
A Yes, sir.
Q Can you elaborate on what those things are
that are in that list.
A I'm sure there's a large number.
Q Yeah. I'm not asking to you remember what
they are. Are those courses that you gave? Is that
what that means?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. For example, there's one here the
title is comprehensive firearms and firearms law
identification, Huntington, West Virginia.
A Uh-huh.
Q Who is the audience for a class like that?
A On all of those the audience is either
going to be another federal agency, military, or
state and local law enforcement. We don't give any
of those classes to the general public, with one
exception. I've given a class that included members
of the public, but it was in their duties assisting
police. But that particular class was given to the
city police of Huntington, and there were also
members of the local sheriff's department there, I
Page 61 - Page 64 (16)
3
4
6
7
B
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1585
'lin-l _..,lnpr 1'
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page65
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
believe. And a couple of surrounding cities also

sent people to that class.
Q Okay. And then I guess the combination of
words is kind of confusing me, firearms and fireanns
law identification. Are you identifying laws or are
you identifying fireanns?
A Both. We went through the GCA and the
NFA, and we also identified fireanns and how some of
those firearms fit into different classifications
under both the GCA and NFA.
Basically it was a class to -- often local
law enforcement don't know exactly when to call a
federal -- call the ATF agent, their local agents,
to get them involved in a gun case. So this was
geared towards making them understand that.
For instance, under the machine gun
definition, a machine gun doesn't have to shoot to
be a machine gun. It can be a single individual
part. And so just because they're looking at a
piece of metal doesn't mean it's not a firearm was
kind of one of the things mentioned in that class,
basically just to gear them or associate them with
federal firearms laws and to know when they may or
may not be dealing with a firearm or when they need
to contact ATF.
Page67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
x-raying like a submitted sample to see where weld

joints are or anything like that? You're talking
about defeating x-ray for the purpose of committing
a crime?
A Yes, like when someone might have a
fireann secreted in luggage or something and it goes
through the x-ray machine at the airport.
Q And is that the same for air marshal
disguised firearms?
A Yes, sir.
Q It's something that looks like something
other than a firearm?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay.
A And the list of classes I've given is not
exhaustive. We give classes all the time, and I
just don't have a chance to put all of them in
there. But there's a number of classes that we give
that's not on there, but all of them are geared
towards law enforcement, military.
Q How much of your time would you say is
devoted to giving classes?
A Really not that much. I travel -- I mean,
it comes and goes. Everything in my job kind of
comes and goes in cycles. I may have months where I
Page66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It also made them familiar with some of

the -- this is why we wouldn't teach this to the
general public - but we made them aware of some of
the more common conversion methods that we witness
so that they know what to look for when they're
dealing with firearms in their duties as police
officers.
Q Okay. And there's another item on here
that might fall in that category. I'm not sure from
that description. Concealed fireanns and
destructive devices (defeating x-ray).
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that talking about trying to defeat an
x-ray machine by going through the airport with
something that's a fireann that's hard to tell is a
firearm?
A Yes, sir. We were tasked at one time to
give classes to the Transportation Security
Administration and to the air marshals. And we gave
them classes on a number of different types of
concealed firearms, firearm fit in the AOW category
and also just ways to conceal firearms. And that
was the target audience for those classes.
Q Okay. So when you're talking about
defeating x-ray, that doesn't have to do with
\lin-l -!-.aipN:
Page68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get a large number of items that are coming in from

manufacturers and importers. I might go through a
period of time where I'm getting nothing from them
and Jim getting tons of evidence that comes in, and
then there's times when I'm tasked with giving
classes.
We don't stop getting cases just because
we're gone giving classes either, so I might as we
speak be getting tons of both manufacturers and
evidence while I'm sitting here.
Q You don't think you spend a lot of time
giving classes as a rule?
A As an overall percentage of my duties, no.
Probably a little more than some of the other FEO's
but not an inordinate amount of time, no.
Q Would there be any particular reason why
you do it more than the others?
A No. Now, I give more military classes
than they do because of my experience with the
military and training there in those weapons. For
instance, the United States Marine Corps, we give
classes there all the time. I don't know if that's
one of the classes listed on there. But I was the
first civilian to go through the Marine Corps' new
combat weapons training course, where they certify
1586
(17) Page 65 - Page 68
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 69
Page 71
Q Is he with ATF?
Marines as what they call a gunner, which is both a

title and a rank in the Marine Corps.
3
But after having gone through that course,
4 then we went back as an agency. And I'm not the
s only one giving those classes. There's other people
6 who have given classes where I've not been there,
7 and when I'm there, there's other FEO's who have
8 gone as well. But the Marine Corps gunner's course,
9 both at the -- oh, if I can remember the acronym -10 Small Unit Weapons and Tactics School 11
Q SMATS?
12
A -- and at the Precision Weapons Section,
13 I've given classes at both of those places. And
14 I've given foreign weapons training classes at those
15 places. And the weapons that we dealt with in the
16 foreign weapons realm is primarily Soviet style
17 weapons like the PK, the RPD's, all the AK family.
18 We've gone through some of the HK series of fireanns
l9 with them, things that they may come in contact with
20 but don't normally get training with in the course
21 of their training there.
22
They also get a little more hands on with
23 our courses. Even if they've had similar such
24 classes, they get s little more hands on with our
25 class than they would in the Marine Corps, because
A He's with the National Firearms Branch of

ATF.
4
Q Then there's -- well, strike that. That
5 course that Mr. Shaible gave on NFA forms and
6 tracking, that was that?
7
A Basically he went over all of the
e different NFA forms dealing with licensing and
9 manufacturing of NFA firearms and authorization to
lO manufacture from ATF, request to manufacture, things
l l of that nature.
12
Q That's I take it not a primary part of
13 your function. It was more or less you are familiar
14 with how that works?
15
A Yes, sir.
16
Q And then there's one in here called
17 machine gun conversions.
A Yes, sir.
18
19
Q With Rick Vasquez and Mike Knapp.
A Yes, sir.
20
21
Q All right. I think we know who Mr.
22 Vasquez is. Who is Mike Knapp?
23
A He's another FEO also.
24
Q What was that course about, machine gun
25 conversions?
Pege70
Page 72
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we bring ammunition and allow them to shoot and

disassemble and learn a little bit about their
operation, operating characteristics.
Then at the Precision Weapons Section,
that's primarily a manufacturing facility for the
Marine Corps. So we give classes there to them
dealing with manufacturing and all the issues
surrounding manufacturing with respect to their work
for the Marine Corps and how that is authorized.
And then those same individuals obviously have that
knowledge of manufacturing, so we will give them
classes on how that would affect them when they're
manufacturing as a civilian on their own time.
Q Okay. Back up. One question on the list
of different firearms that you did papers on there
was -- actually this might not have been a paper you
did. It's called NFA forms and tracking.
A Yes. I didn't do a paper on it. That was
a class that was given to me.
Q And in parentheses there is Garry -- is it
Shaible?
A Shaible, yes, sir.
Q G-a-r-r-y, last name, S-h-a-i-b-1-e.
That's pronounced Shaible?
A Yes, sir.
Page 69 - Page 72 (18)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Yeah. It was about just what it says,

converting firearms into machine guns and all of the
various methods that have been seen, the most
common, and a few of the least common methods that
were seen in converting some automatic firearms into
machine guns.
Q And you might have misspoken. You said
converting automatic firearms?
A Semi-automatic, I said.
Q Okay. So it wasn't a how to course? It
was basically a how to identify course, how to
identify a conversion?
A Well, it was both. You don't know how to
identify unless you can do it, but yes.
Q All right. Then let's move on to -there's a section in your c.v. about search
warrants, both federal and state. Is that your
involvement in the execution of search warrant or
applying for one? Or what is that?
A The state ones are search warrants that I
applied for, and the federal ones were ones that I
was involved in.
Q In executing or applying for it?
A I was involved in executing it but not in
applying for it.
1587
\lin-l
-~cript 11
RIF
Uniled Stales of America v.

One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS, etc:.
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 73
Q Okay. And what would your role be in

executing a federal search warrant?
3
A My job is to provide as an FEO direct
4 assistance to agents in the field on, again,
s identifying exactly which category a fireann might
6 fit into, whether it is a fireann or not indeed, and
7 then which category it might fit into.
Q So I assume since you're talking about
e
9 executing them and you list various places around
10 the country, you're not talking about something you
11 do at your office; you're talking about some kind of
12 field work.
13
A I go with them when an agent is going to
14 execute a search warrant and they've made a request
15 for an FEO. It's whoever is next up on the wheel,
16 basically, who goes to that search warrant if
17 they're available. If they've got a court case,
ie obviously they'll go to the next person in line and
19 so forth.
20
Yeah, we would be tasked to travel to that
21 location where they're going to execute a search
22 warrant. And the agents -- we don't enter the
23 building with the agents, but the agents will enter
24 the building. Once it's secure, we'll go in, and if
25 they need our assistance, we provide it. And then
l
Page 75
Q I assume the grand jury would be where

you've been called as a witness in an indictment
3 proceeding.
4
A In some of them. There's been a few grand
s juries that were held in Washington D.C. where we
6 were asked by the U.S. Attorney's Office to give an
7 instructional presentation to the jury. We didn't
e present any cases or anything of that nature in that
9 one.
10
Q That would be part of some Grand Jury
11 investigation of some particular thing?
12
A Yes.
13
Q Okay. And then the ones that are just
14 Federal Court, are those all trials, or are they
15 some combination of other kinds of hearings?
16
A They're all trials, yes.
17
Q Okay. And then there are some state
1B appearances of various types, Grand Jury, Circuit
19 Court, Magistrate Court, Traffic Court. Are any of
20 those ATF-rclated, or were those all as a state
21 trooper?
22
A If I could see the list. There were some
23 state appearances I made as an FEO. Those are all
24 as a state trooper. The one that says Berkeley,
25 Morgan, and Jefferson, those were all as a state
l
Page74
l
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Paga 76
when they don't, we just stay out of the way and let
l trooper.
them do their jobs.
2
Q I think it continues on the next page.
Q Is that a comprehensive list of them
A San Diego, that was a state grand jury
3
there? It looks like it's seven or eight of them.
4 that I presented to as an FEO.
A Ifl could look at it.
5
Q Do you remember what kind of case that
Sure,
down
at
the
bottom.
6
was?
Q
A No. There was another one in St. Paul.
7
A It was a firearms case.
B
Q Do you know what kind of firearm it was?
Q Minnesota?
A Yes. I don't know the exact date for you,
9
A No, I can't recall right now off the top
but it was this year. Yeah, that's it as far as
10 of my head. Yeah, I think that's it.
search warrants.
11
Q Okay. And then I guess I'm not sure I
Now, there may be occasions also where we
12 understand the difference between at the beginning,
would go to a location where there was a consent to 13 where it just says Federal Court and there were
search where no search warrant was given. And I
14 occur four cases listed, and then at the end it says
think there was - I've only been to two of those.
15 as an expert FEO, and it lists -One was an individual's residence, and the other
16
A Yes. There were some Federal Court cases
one -- that was in northern Virginia. And the other 17 that l attended as a state trooper.
one was a manufacturer up in near Pittsburgh,
lB
Q So the - well, there are four listed
Pennsylvania. I can't recall the date for you on
19 under Federal Court, and then there's something like
those.
20 eight under as an expert FEO.
Q All right. Then we've got some court
21
A Yes.
appearances here. You've got them separated by
22
Q So the ones that just say Federal Court
bureau. There's a section Federal Court and Federal 23 and don't say as an expert FEO, those were as a
Grand Jury.
24 state trooper?
A Uh-huh.
25
A Yes - no, I take that -- the last one
\lin-l
-~wrfptQ
American Court Reporting Company, Inc:.
1588
(19) Page 73 - Page 76
RIF
Max M. Kingery
Seplember 16, 2009
Uniled Stales of America v.

Page77
Page 79
here, David Olofson, that was as an FEO. The others 1

are as state trooper.
2
I need to go back and update this so I can
3
4 recall it better myself, but I'm not sure about the
4
5 U.S. v. Alex Grant. I can't recall what his case
5
6 was about. That's under Federal Grand Jury. I
6
7 think that was -- I'm not positive on that one. But
7
a the others, Wills, Funk, Funk et al., those were as
a
9 a state trooper. The Washington D.C. grand jury
9
10 here I have listed, that was as an FEO where I told
10
11 you we did the presentation. That wasn't a
11
12 particular case.
12
13
Q I wasn't asking about the grand jury ones,
13
14 just the four Federal Court ones here.
14
15
A Okay.
15
16
Q I think you said the Olofson was as an
16
17
17 FEO.
is
A Yes, sir.
18
19
Q What about the other three?
19
20
A Those were as a state trooper.
20
21
Q Okay. So the Olofson case, is that
21
22 different from the one that's on the next page as an
22
23 expert FEO, U.S. Federal Court, Milwaukee?
23
24
A No. That's the same one.
24
25
Q So that's a duplication?
2s
1
2
3
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And you've got some notations after
the court cases that I'm assuming are the kind of
fireann at issue. SBS, is that short-barreled
shotgun?
A Yes, sir.
Q MG is machine gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q Sil. is silencer?
A Yes, sir.
Q So it looks like you've had two cases
where you've testified as an expert FEO regarding a
machine gun; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Then the one you said that was in
Milwaukee, that's the Olofson case; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q I'm somewhat familiar with that case. I
won't ask you very much about that. But can you
just give me an overview of what the issues were in
that case.
A Well, I'm not familiar with all of the
issues in the case. My part in the case was
classification of the fireann.
Q I only want to know about your part.
Page 78
Page 80
A Yes.
A I was asked to classify the firearm.
Q Okay. The two Federal Court ones as a
2
3
Q And you testified at the trial in that
state trooper that you have listed as firearms

case?
cases, do you remember what kind of firearms those 4
A Yes, sir.
5 were?
s
Q And what was just a summary of what your
6
A As a state trooper?
6 testimony was in that case? Do you recall?
7
Q Yes.
7
A That it was a machine gun.
e A Well, l wasn't called as an expert. They
a
Q That the firearm at issue was?
.9 were firearms-related cases. The -9
A Yes.
10
Q Would that be one where you'd arrested
10
Q And Mr. Savage testified in that case,
11 somebody that had a firearm that became a federal
11 too; is that right?
12 issue?
12
A Yes, sir.
13
A Yes. I think there was a short-barreled
13
Q Were you present during his testimony?
14 shotgun involved in one, and the other ones were
14
A No, sir.
15 just GCA firearms that were possessed with
15
Q And then the other machine gun case, U.S.
16 narcotics, which is what made it a federal case.
16 Federal Court in Nashville, I think Mr. Viscomi sent
17
I think that's it.
17 me an e-mail indicating the case caption was U.S.
u
Q Okay.
1e versus Dunn; is that correct?
19
A But I was just, as I said, called as a
19
A Yes, sir.
20 police officer, not as an expert in those cases.
20
Q Actually it turns out there are a lot of
21
Q So then on this page where it lists as an
21 U.S. versus Dunns in Tennessee, so I wasn't able to
22 expert FEO and we've got eight federal cases listed, 22 find that. Can you tell me what that case was
23 that's a comprehensive list?
23 about.
24
A I believe so, yes.
24
A It was about an SKS that had been
2s
Q For testifying as an expert FEO?
25 converted into -- it was a semi-automatic SKS that
3
4
Page 77 - Page 80 (20)
1589
'lin-l -!-.1.:1ipr1<
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 81
Page 83
had been converted into a machine gun. And the case

was actually much more involved than that, but
3 that's what I was there for was the classification
4 of that fireann.
5
Q And what was the substance of your
6 testimony?
7
A That it had been converted into a machine
e gun.
9
Q By the Dunn individual?
10
A I don't know.
u
Q You don't know; you just classified it?
12
A Yes, sir.
13
Q And you were qualified as an expert in
14 that case?
15
A Yes, sir.
16
Q And also in the Olofson case?
17
A Yes, sir, in all of those.
1e
(Discussion off the record;
19
lunch recess from 12:00 noon to
20
1:06 p.m.)
21 BY MR. MONROE:
22
Q Are you familiar with the description of
23 the manufacturing process for the Defendant that was
24 in Claimant's discovery responses?
25
A Yes.
A It's not very detailed, but let me go over

it again here quickly.
Okay. I see an inaccuracy here, but
4 there's also things that are not complete.
s
Q All right. Well, let's start with
6 inaccuracies. Can you point to areas of inaccuracy
7 that you can identify.
e
A This is a running paragraph on page 4 at
9 the top. I'm taking it these are individual
10 sentences that are not spaced. But it starts with
11 "The above sign and manufacturing steps ensure that
12 the HA54RCCS, quote, unquote, receiver is not
13 capable of firing any projectile unless installed in
14 a machine gun."
15
That's an untrue statement, the
16 distinguishing feature being that of any MAC type
17 upper, the rear of all MAC type uppers is open, and
18 recoil and buffer systems are not contained or
19 supported in any way.
20
It goes on about the recoil system. "The
21 above design and manufacturing steps prevent the
22 installation of an unmodified PK type bolt carrier
23 from being installed in the 54RCCSS." That's an
24 accurate statement simply because none of the
25 manufacturing steps above prevent that. It is
Page 82
Page 84
Q Let me hand you a copy of Claimant's

response to Plaintiffs first interrogatories.
3
(Claimant's Exhibit 1 was marked.)
4 BY MR. MONROE:
s
Q Okay. I'm handing you Claimant's Exhibit
6 1, which I'm representing to you is Claimant's
7 Response to Plaintiffs First Interrogatories. Have
e you seen that before?
9
A Yes.
10
Q Okay.
11
A Claimant's Response to First
12 Interrogatories, yeah.
13
Q Right. Plaintifrs first interrogatories,
14 right. If you could jump over to page 3 and look at
15 interrogatory number 6, and the interrogatory from
16 the government was "Explain step by step any
17 modifications performed to all parts used to
18 manufacture the HA54RCCS, to include, but not
19 limited to, removing and/or adding features designed
20 to prevent automatic functioning."
21
And then there's a lengthy response to
22 that interrogatory. Have you read that response?
23
A Yes.
24
Q Do you have any reason to believe that
2s that response is inaccurate or incomplete?
prevented by the original manufacturer of the

semi-auto receiver that he started with, but there
was nothing that was done by Historic Arms that
4 prevents the installation of an unmodified bolt
5 carrier.
6
Q I don't want to cut you off. I'm not
7 sure. Is that it, or are you -a A For that portion, yes.
9
Q Okay. Well, let me clarify and maybe
10 narrow the question a little bit. I'm really only
11 wanting to know about the actual manufacturing steps
12 that are in that response and not necessarily the
13 description of the device or the result that
14 follows. So why don't we just start with the
15 response where it says -- start with a MAC I 0 type
16 machine gun and finish with the sentence that begins
17 fabricate shell deflector.
l&
A Okay.
19
Q Is there anything in that actual
20 manufacturing process that's listed that you have
21 any reason to believe is inaccurate, based on your
22 inspection of the Defendant?
23
A No.
24
Q Do you have any reason to believe that
25 it's incomplete, that description of the
'll11-l -"wript01
2
3
1
2
3
1590
(21) Page 81 - Page 84
RIF
Max M. KJngery
September 16, 2009

Page85
2
3
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
manufacturing process?
A Yes.
Q Okay. In what ways?
A The detail, there's no dimensions or
anything that of that nature, exact location of
cuts, dimensions of the cuts, those types of things.
That's primarily it.
This tells me what he did but not in a
manner that I could reproduce it exactly without
having something to measure against.
Q Okay. So I don't want to put words in
your mouth. Are you saying that this is
insufficient as a tutorial on how to reproduce the
work?
A In the exact way that he did. This is
sufficient for a person to be able to take and
reproduce. I'm not saying the dimensions are going
to be exactly the same, but you could reproduce
this, yes.
Q All right. Let me ask it a little bit
different way. Do you think there are any material
steps that are omitted from this description? And
by material, I would mean anything that bears on the
classification of the device.
A No. No.
Page 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
depicted damage to the shipping container.

And Mr. Savage was contacted about that to
verify that the condition of the firearm was still
materially as he had shipped it and that it was
damaged during the shipping process and not by us.
Q Did you have any involvement in that -A No, sir.
Q -- contact with Mr. Savage?
A No, sir.
Q Okay. I don't know that we need to mark
it as an exhibit, but I'm showing you the
photographs that your counsel gave me yesterday.
Those are the photographs that you're referring to?
A Yes, sir.
Q And there's some dates that are -- well,
the same date is stamped several times on that sheet
of April 23rd of2008. Do you know what the
significance of that date is? Like was that the
date the photos were taken, or do you have any idea?
A I don't know.
Q All right. So the photos were taken by
the -- would that have been by the evidence
technician?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And is that also the person who
Page86
1
2
3
s
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
11
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
2s
1
Q Okay. Now, when did you first see the
2
Defendant?
3
A Excuse me. When it was brought to my cube
4
in the -- excuse me. I'm sorry. I apologize for
burping. I had Mexican food for lunch.
s
When it was brought to my cube there at
6
the FTB office, I don't know the exact date. That
7
may be in the paperwork. But I know that it was not a
the same day that it was received there at the
9
lo
office. It was held for a few days before I got it.
Q Okay. Do you know when it was received by 11
12
the ATF?
13
A Again, I don't know the exact date on
u
that.
15
Q Okay. You said it was held for a while
16
before you received it?
17
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know what the purpose of that was?
18
A Yes, sir. The device was in a shipping
19
container which was damaged during shipment, and a 20
substantial amount of damage to the container was 21
22
noted when it was received at the office. So that
was photographed. And I guess that's the sheet that 23
24
we gave you the other day, yesterday, with the
single sheet with multiple photographs on it that
25
Page 85 - Page 88 (22)
Page 88
contacted Mr. Savage about the damaged shipping

container?
A I don't know who did that, sir.
Q Okay. Do you know how long the Defendant
was held before you got it?
A I thought it was just a few days, but as I
don't know the exact date when it wns received, I
don't know. I couldn't tell you.
Q Okay. Do you know, was there any other
purpose in holding the Defendant besides I guess
awaiting instruction from Mr. Savage on what to do
about the damaged container?
A No, sir. That was the only reason.
Q There wasn't any question about what to do
with it or anything like that other than how to deal
with the damage?
A What to do with it as far as what, whether
to return it to him or not? I should actually say I
don't know what transpired through -- with respect
to all that, so I wouldn't be in a position to
answer this.
Q Okay.
A I was just simply told it was held because
of the damage and they were contacting him.
1591
\linl
~l'l'ipt II
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 91
Page89
l
2
3
s
6
e
9
10
11
12
13
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MR. MONROE:
Q I'm showing you what's been marked as
Exhibit 2 for the Claimant. Can you identify that?
A Yes. This looks like a copy of the
report, the analysis that I did on the Defendant.
Q Did you write that?
A Yes, sir.
Q And it's under Mr. Spencer's signature;
Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q But you wrote it?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then it says -- in the first paragraph
it refers to your letter. You're referring to
Mr. Savage; right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Of April 21st of2008. I take it that's
when Mr. Savage sent the Defendant to FTB,
April 21st.
A That would either be the date that the
letter was received or the date that Mr. Savage put
on the letter when he wrote it.
Q Okay. And then on page 6 it says "The
submitted sample" -- and I assume that's the
Defendant again; right?
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
And in this case I was notified that the

evidence was here but they were holding it for a few
days. And then when that was -- whatever process
took place there, it was hand-delivered to my cube
by the evidence technician.
Q And the "it" that you're referring to is
the Defendant?
A Yes, sir.
Q So you first received the folder. Did
somebody hand-deliver that?
A The evidence technician.
Q So he'd just bring folders down once a day
and hand them around to everybody?
A Yes, sir. He has basically a rotating
list. And again, those lists are divided also
between civilian, manufacturer, and evidence. And
if the evidence that comes in or the items that come
in, I should say, are evidence, he'll go to the
evidence list. And whoever is next up on the
evidence list gets that item in order as they come
in and so forth and so on.
The same thing for manufacturers' items,
the same thing for civilian letters. Generally we
don't get items from civilians, but occasionally we
do.
Page90
Page 92
A Yes.
Q -- "was test fired on May 8th, 2008."
A Yes.
Q So that, I assume, means that you received
s it sometime between April 21st and May 8th.

s
6
A Yes, sir.
6
7
Q Okay. All right. So then after you
7
8
8 received it -- you received it from the evidence
9 technician or from someone else?
9
lO
10
A The evidence technician.
11
11
Q Is there a particular process for that? I
i2
12 mean, does the evidence technician bring it to your
13
13 office, or does he notify you that it's available
14
14 and you go get it? How does that work?
15
15
A Well, first we usually get n folder
16
16 with -- as I had said earlier, our duties are kind
17 of we kind of divide up the different aspects of
17
l8 what we do in respect to answering manufacturers and 18
19 civilians and with criminal cases. And the folders
19
20 that we get for those correspondences is color-coded 20
21 to that respect.
21
22
And manufacturers' folders are purple, so
22
23 I would have gotten a purple folder with this
23
24 Jetter, or not this letter but Mr. Savage's letter
24
25 in it.
2s
'1111-l -~wriptGt
Q So are all of the FEO's on all of the

lists?
A Yes, sir.
Q You're not divided up by there's a certain
group that works on manufacturers and a certain
group that works on evidence?
A No, sir. We all get all the folders.
Q Okay. I presume perhaps with the
exception of Mr. Vasquez, or does he pull his share
of the duty along with everybody else?
A I believe he pulls his share of the duty
also.
Q Okay. So the evidence technician brought
you the Defendant to your office, I guess sometime
between those two dates, April 21st and May 8th.
Then at that point how do you know what your
assignment is? How do you know what to do with
what's brought to you?
A I read the letter that's there from the
individual who submitted the item.
Q Okay. So in the case of Defendant
specifically, Mr. Savage had sent a letter
accompanying the Defendant, and so you read his
letter to determine what it is you should do?
A Yes, sir.
1592
(23) Page 89 - Page 92
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 93
Q Do you recall what his letter asked?
Page 95
report directly to Mr. Vasquez?

A Well, I do but not exclusively. John and
3 Rick are both in our office together. It's not a
4 situation where I can't talk to John without going
5 to Rick first or vice versa.
6
Q I guess - let me ask it in a different
7 way.
a
A I'm thinking in a military mind frame, I
9 guess.
10
Q Okay. Who is your supervisor?
11
A My first-line supervisor would be Rick
12 Vasquez.
13
Q Did Mr. Vasquez give you any instruction
14 on what to do with the Defendant?
15
A No, sir.
16
Q Okay. So you determined that you were
17 going to classify it and attempt to answer the
18 questions from Mr. Savage's letter; is that right?
19
A Yes, sir.
20
Q Do you recall how long it took you to
21 accomplish that?
22
A Not specifically. During the process
23 there was a -- obviously we did a test firing. The
24 results of my findings was presented to both
25 Mr. Vasquez and Mr. Spencer and also to legal
1
A There were three questions, something

3 about con finning if it was n short-barreled rifle,
4 whether it could be fired from the shoulder. I have
s them in the letter here in front of me.
6
Q Sure. Go ahead.
7
A It says here, "You request verification
s that the sample is designed to be fired from the
9 shoulder as a barrel less than 16 inches and is
10 designed for exclusive use in the MAC type machine
11 gun as a caliber conversion device."
12
Q So based on -- and I assume you were
13 either paraphrasing or perhaps even lifted that
14 quote from Mr. Savage's letter; is that right?
15
A Yes, sir.
16
Q When you wrote that in your letter.
17
A I would say the majority of it is
18 paraphrased. It looks like the last phrase there is
19 in quotes, so that would be quoted from him
20 directly.
21
Q Okay. So then based on those three
22 requests from his letter, what did you determine
23 that you would do with the Defendant?
24
A That I would analyze it and classify it.
25
Q Did you intend, then, also to respond to
2
Page 94
Page 96
those three specific questions?

A Yes, sir.
3
Q Did you receive any direction from anyone
4 else at FTB on what to do, or is it a matter of when
5 an item comes to you, you more or less decide for
6 yourself what the appropriate course of action is?
1
A We use our knowledge and experience along
s with the particular request of the person who
9 submitted it to detennine what needs to be done with
10 a particular item. If there's ever a question -11 there was not in this case. In this case I made the
12 decision on what to do with it. But ifthere was
13 ever a question, then we would either go to Rick
14 Vasquez or John Spencer.
15
Q Okay. And just for the record, Rick
16 Vasquez is the Assistant Chiefofthe FTB?
17
A Yes, sir. And since they're our
18 supervisors, we would obviously go to them.
19
Q Okay. And John Spencer is the Chief of
20 the FTB?
21
A Yes, sir.
22
Q Okay. And you reported directly to
23 Mr. Vasquez; is that correct?
24
A Well, through him, yes, sir, to John.
2s
Q I might have missed that. Do you not
counsel before a final letter was produced and put

out. But I had come to my conclusions during that
3 process.
4
Q Well, let me ask it this way. Did you
s work on Defendant other than -- regardless of how
6 long it might have taken to compose your letter, did
7 you actually work on Defendant in the course of more
a than one day?
9
A Yes, sir.
10
Q Do you know how many different days you
11 worked on it?
12
A Probably two, maybe three directly, and
13 then I took some time writing. And then there were,
14 as I said, occasions when the findings were
15 presented to different persons. And when I
16 presented the findings, I also displayed the item to
17 them.
18
Q Did you work on it on successive days, or
19 did you work on it for a while and then have some
20 days where you had to work on other things and then
21 come back to it later?
22
A There were other items that were worked on
23 during that time period, yes.
24
Q So there might have been entire days of
25 interruption?
Page 93 - Page 96 (24)
1593
RIF

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page97
Page 99
A Yes, sir.
Q Apparently, though, you did all of it in I
guess less than a couple weeks or so between the
begiMing date and the end date.
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know how many total hours you spent
on it?
A No, sir.
Q Can you describe the steps you followed to
perform the classification?
A Well, first I examined the item itself as
received and examined it for its design features,
its method of function, its construction.
Then I compared that to a PK type firearm
that we had in our reference collection and a MAC
type firearm that we had in our collection. During
the course of that I determined that it was safe
enough to fire and that it appeared that it would be
easily capable of firing and likely fire
automatically if the recoil spring were retained.
So I took steps to conduct a test firing to verify
that.
During the course of this I had taken some
photographs. There were other photographs taken
after the test firing. And I wrote my report both
A Yes, sir.
Q -- of a previous submission for a
2
3 semi-automatic PK receiver?
4
A Yes, sir.
Q And you believe that that submission was
s
6 by the same company that manufactured the PK
7 receiver that the Claimant used as part of the
8 manufacturing process of the Defendant?
A At that time I believed that. Later it
9
10 was confirmed by Mr. Savage that that was in fact
11 the same manufacturer.
Q Okay. And then you say you compared the
12
13 Defendant to a MAC type firearm; is that correct?
14
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that comparison to a semi-automatic or
15
16 a machine gun?
17
A Both.
Q And as part of your inspection and
18
19 comparison to the other firearms I think you said
20 you made a couple of determinations. One was that
21 you did determine that it was safe to fire?
A Yes, sir.
22
23
Q How did you make that determination?
A Just from visual examination of the item
24
25 itself, the bore, the chamber, the bolt face, just
Page98
Page 100
during and after the examinations.

Q Okay. You said you compared the Defendant
to a PK type firearm from your collection?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that a semi-automatic or a machine
gun?
A A machine gun.
Q Did you compare it to a semi-automatic?
A I did not have a semi-automatic version
available at that time.
Q When you say you didn't have one
available, does that mean there wasn't one in the
collection -A Correct.
Q -- or it was otherwise disposed?
A There not one in the collection. Now, I
did compare it to a previous documentation of a
previous submission of a PK, a semi-auto PK type
receiver that was approved as a semi-auto receiver.
And I believe that was the same company who
manufactured the receiver using this device.
Q Let me make sure I understand that. You
compared it to documentation -- and I guess that
would mean like descriptions, photographs, things
like that --
'lin-l -~lriptn
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those aspects of it. And also I had already

observed how it functioned mechanically and saw that
it would function. And the barrel appeared to be
capable of withstanding the pressures of a fired
cartridge.
Q And when you said you had seen how it
worked mechanically, does that mean you'd like
manipulated the bolt carrier or something like that?
A Yes, sir.
MR. MONROE: Let me go off the record for
a second.
(Discussion off the record)
BY MR. MONROE:
Q Back on the record. Mr. Kingery, just for
the record, we've taken Defendant out of custody now
and have it on the table here in front of us. And I
saw you inspect it, and I presume it's unloaded and
safe to handle and discuss.
A Correct.
Q I think before we broke you said you'd
made a couple of observations before you attempted
to fire it. One was that it was safe to fire, and
you've explained how you made that determination. I
think you also determined that it would likely fire
automatically; is that correct?
1594
(25) Page 97 ~ Page 100
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
UnUed States of America v.

Page 101
A Yes.
Q What did you base that on?
3
A How it functions.
4
Q Could you elaborate.
s
A Well, this receiver is a PK type receiver,
6 And the PK type firearms, the machine gun version
7 operates on an open bolt.
e
This is a modified machine gun bolt which
9 would operate on the open bolt principle. So the
10 feed mechanism I noticed also functions, works
11 properly. As you cycle the bolt fore and aft, the
12 feed mechanism operates to -- what it would nonnally
13 do is pull a belt of ammunition through the feed
14 tray here in such a position that this portion of
15 the bolt carrier will clasp a cartridge, withdraw it
16 from the belt, and then feed it down into the
17 chamber.
18
And the firing pin was present and
19 appeared to be of sufficient length to protrude from
20 the bolt when its bolt is in the slot position.
21 That would strike a primer.
22
Q When you say the firing pin protrudes from
23 the bolt, is the firing pin actually attached to the
24 bolt or the bolt carrier?
25
A The bolt carrier. It's positioned such
l
Page 103
striker mechanism or propelled by a separate striker

mechanism, and it's not struck by a hammer.
3
Q So when you say fixed, you don't mean that
4 it's attached to anything in particular?
5
A Correct.
6
Q All right. Then you said the only thing
7 necessary to make it fire is to -- other than
8 obviously you have to load it, but -- well. Let me
9 ask it a different way.
10
Is the Defendant as it sits here today in
11 the same condition that it was when was received by
12 FTB?
13
A It appears to be with the exception of
14 this slight damage to the ejection cartridge guide
15 apparatus here. I don't know what your nomenclature
16 would be for it. But with the exception of that
11 small damage there, it appears to be the same
18 identical condition.
19
Q So when it was received by FTB, that
20 damage that you're talking about did not exist?
21
A I don't recall seeing it damaged then or
22 -- as I was leaving the room here, I overheard
23 Mr. Savage mention that it had been damaged or was
24 in that condition at the Coweta range. I don't
2s recall that at that time either. It may have been,
l
Page 102
that it rests between the bolt carrier and the bolt

as a fixed firing pin, basically. A traditional
3 fixed firing pin is exposed on the face of the bolt.
4 But in this case the firing pin passes through the
s bolt and is not exposed until the bolt rotates into
& a locked position. But it still functions
1 identically the same as a fixed firing pin would.
a There's no separate striker mechanism to strike it
9 after it's closed. There's no hammer or anything of
10 that nature.
11
So the only thing that needs to be done
12 here to make this fire is to capture the recoil
13 spring in place and put a belt of ammunition in it,
14 pull the charging handle back, and it will fire
15 until the ammunition is exhausted or mechanical
16 malfunction stops it.
17
Q Okay. Just to clarify in the firing pin,
18 if it's -- I think you said it's not attached to the
19 bolt.
20
A Right.
21
Q It's attached to the bolt carrier?
22
A Correct.
23
Q So when you say it's fixed, what is it
24 fixed to?
25
A Fixed in place. It's not struck by a
Page 104
P11ge 101 - Page 104 (26)
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but I don't recall seeing it at that time.

Q But are you sure one way or the other
whether it was received by FTB originally with that
damage?
A I don't believe so.
Q You don't believe that it was received
damaged?
A No, I don't believe so.
Q Do you know how it became damaged?
A No, sir.
Q Do you hove any conjecture on how it
became damaged?
MR. VISCOMI: Objection as calling for
speculation. You can answer that question if
you -THE WITNESS: I wouldn't be able to answer
it if I don't know how it was damaged, or I
wasn't aware that it was damaged until now.
BY MR. MONROE:
Q Do you know what it would take to cause
that kind of damage?
A Just some pressure. I don't know what
that join is made of.
Q Is that a -A I would say some pressure.
1595
\1i11 -lJ-Scri111rti1
RIF
Unlled States of America v.

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 105
2
3
s
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Is that joint, or is that metal that just

sheared or failed there? Or can you tell?
A How - well, it's not a single piece of
metal.
Q Was that a joint there where it's now
broken?
A Yes. It appears to be either a weld or a
silver solder right there.
Q You think it broke on a joint?
A Or right next to it.
Q All right. Other than that damage that
we've just been discussing, is the Defendant
otherwise in the same condition as when it was
received at FTB?
A Yes.
Q And then I think you said a minute ago,
then, that in order to make it fire, something had
to be done to contain the recoil spring; is that
correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does that mean in the condition that the
Defendant's in right now, sitting on the table, it's
not capable of firing?
A Correct.
Q You'd have to add something to it?
Page 107
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
u
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
classification period and for some time afterward

you were the only person at ATF that fired it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, can you describe what you did to fire
it.
A Well, first -- as you see in my letter
there, the first thing I tried to do was to use zip
ties, basically, plastic zip ties. I took a little
piece of flat metal, aluminum sheet metal, cut it
roughly at just slightly larger than the size of the
opening here at the rear of the receiver. I had a
piece of it that was just slightly longer and bent
under and then used the zip ties to hold that plate
to the back of this. And that was it.
During that test fire the device fired one
round, and the force of the recoil broke the zip
ties. Then after that I used a chain.
Q Let me stop you there. Ifwe do too much,
it will get complicated trying to clarify some of
those points.
A Okay.
Q So with that first firing that you did you
said it fired one round and failed?
A It didn't fail. It fired one round. And
then as it cycled through the automatic firing
Page 106
Page 108
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. There's nothing you could do to it
with what's sitting there right now to make it fire?

A No, sir.
Q All right. So then you had to do
something to it to make it fire; is that correct?
A To restore it to a firing condition, yes,
sir.
Q Okay. Did anyone else at FTB, or at ATF,
I should say, fire it before you did?
A No, sir.
Q Has anyone at ATF fired it at all besides
you?
A I believe there was a demonstration that I
was not present for when it was fired, yes. I don't
know who fired it.
Q Do you know where that was?
A Somewhere here in Georgia.
Q Would that have been after it was seized,
or arrested?
A Yes.
Q That was after the classification was
finished?
A Yes.
Q So does that mean throughout the
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
u
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sequence, the force of the recoil drives the bolt to

the rear, compresses the recoil spring. The force
of that the zip ties was not able to contain, so one
of the zip ties broke and allowed the recoil
mechanism to be ejected out the rear.
Q And that was the, I understand -- I think
there was some duct tape and zip ties involved.
A Yes, sir.
Q And so the force of the recoil pushed that
tape and the zip ties out the rear?
A Yes.
Q And let me show you Exhibit 2 again.
Looking at page 6, the lower photograph, does that
show the plastic zip ties and the duct tape that you
used in that first test firing?
A Yes.
Q So what you're talking about is the force
of the recoil I guess blew that tape and the zip
ties off the rear?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And how many rounds had you put in
the belt for that testing? Do you recall?
A Three.
Q And it fired once?
A Fired one, yes, sir.
I
Min-ll-SlriptO.iJ
1596
(27) Page IOS - Page 108
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 109
1
2
3
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Was that step that you had done so far in
keeping with normal testing procedures?

A Yes.
Q Isn't your normal procedure to attempt to
fire a single shot before you attempt to fire
multiple shots?
A On occasion we would fire a single shot as
opposed to multiple shots.
Q Well, what would dictate whether you
attempt to fire a single shot first or not?
A Two things. If it was a select fire
mechanism, I'm going to fire a single shot to check
the single fire or semi-auto portion of the firing
mechanism. Also if the mechanism or the firearm is
so light as to give me a feeling of caution as to
its controllability, I would want to fire a single
round to see if I'm going to be able to control it
when it goes into automatic firing.
Q So you weren't concerned about your
ability to control the Defendant when firing
multiple rounds?
A I was still somewhat concerned, but I
wasn't concerned that it was going to fly loose and
endanger anyone.
Q Just to clarify, the Defendant, even
Page 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q And would that be a practice you1d use on
the Defendant if you were wanting to stop it from

firing, with nothing more than its present
configuration besides the rear support that you
added?
A Yes.
Q I've observed you fire it on multiple
occasions, and my recollection is you tend to have
it on some kind of surface and lean on the top of it
with your left forearm. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And what's purpose of that?
A To hold it down.
Q If you didn't do that, what would happen?
A It would both fly back and the barrel
would be pointing upward.
Q That would be unsafe?
A Yes.
Q So then you'd lean on it with your left
forearm, and you operate the charging handle with
your right hand then; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q If you were in the middle of a firing
sequence like that and wanted to stop it by twisting
the belt, how would you do that?
Page 110
1
2
3
6
7
e
9
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
u
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
coupled with the parts you added in order to be able

to fire it, does not have any fire control
components; is that correct?
A That's not true.
Q But is there a means of once you begin
firing to stop it?
A No, sir-- well, yes, actually. You can
- a normal method of stopping what would be termed
a runaway belt gun is to twist the belt. I guess if
someone thought that they were fast enough and
strong enough, they could grab that charging handle.
I wouldn't recommend that. But other than that, no,
sir.
Q All right. So when you say you wouldn't
recommend it, is there a bit of a safety concern
associated with -A Yes,sir.
Q -- trying to grab the charging handle?
A While it's in operation, yes.
Q So that would be an unsafe practice?
A Yes.
Q But it wouldn't be unsafe to grab the belt
and twist?
A No. That's a common practice to stop a
gun like that.
Page 109 - Page 112 (28)
Page 112
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
u
2o
21
22
23
24
25
A I would shift my hands. I would move my

right hand to the top of the feed tray cover and
grab the belt and just twist it.
Q And there wouldn't be any safety concern
with doing that while it was in a firing sequence?
A lt1s not exactly what I would call
completely safe, but I wouldn't have a concern of
doing it, no.
Q As opposed to stopping it -- as opposed to
allowing it to be running away, that would be safe;
right?
A It depends on how much ammunition you had
left in there, but yes.
Q All right. So your first test firing you
had three rounds in the belt. You'd used the
plastic ties and the plate and some duct tape and
had fired one round, and it didn't complete the
cycle because the recoil mechanism blew the tape and
the zip ties off?
A Correct.
Q Okay. So then what did you do next?
A Then I was just trying to think about a
method of attaching that so that it wouldn't come
loose. I was considering using some additional zip
ties in addition to what I had already. But the
1597
\linU-~t ripl
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
edge - I don't know if you can see it from that

side -- the comer of this is kind of sharp, and so
was the metal plate, even though it's covered with
duct tape.
So I had some concerns about just simply
using additional zip ties or thicker zip ties, if
they would be any better than what had just
happened. So l was just casting about for an idea
to use to secure that, and this chain was laying
right there on the table, so l just picked that up
and used it.
Q Okay. And then can you describe how you
made use of the chain.
A Well, I just wrapped the chain from fore
to aft, trying to make sure that it was low enough
on this side to not contact the charging handle and
on this side low enough not to interfere with the
ejected cartridges.
Basically it does the same purpose as the
zip ties. All it does is hold the recoil mechanism
in place. It serves no mechanical function to alter
the device at all.
Q And then after you attached that then what
did you do next?
A Then I repeated the test firing sequence
Page 115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
used in this picture to hold the chain to the

turnbuckle?
A It's not being used to hold the chain to
anything.
Q What's the zip tie doing?
A It looks to me like it's just holding the
chain itself out of the way. It's looped back
around the chain itself. It's not in contact with
the device.
Q Or the turnbuckle?
A It's on the forward part of the
turnbuckle. But the turnbuckle is holding -- the
tension, when you tighten the turnbuckle up with the
chain, that tension is going to hold the chain
there.
Q So the tension is between the
turnbuckle -- well, the turnbuckle supplies the
tension between the chain and it looks like the
deflector; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Okay. The zip tie is not under particular
tension; it's just being used to hold parts in
place?
A Looks that way, yes, sir.
Q Well, when you say it looks that way, you
Page 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with three rounds of ammunition.

Q And what result did you get?
A It fired full auto all three rounds.
Q How do you actually, after you've got the
additions that you put in place with the chain and
the plate and such and nctualty -- let me strike
that.
Look on page 7 of Exhibit 2 again, please.
There's a photograph in there. It looks like
there's - I see a chain and it looks like the plate
on the rear of the Defendant. And then up on the
left side it looks like there are zip ties involved;
is that correct?
A Yeah, there's a zip tie there, yes.
Q Is this the photograph that you took in
the configuration when you fired the Defendant the
second time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. The reason I ask is that I think
the first time I saw it up close and personal being
fired at the Coweta County range there weren't any
zip ties. There was a turnbuckle instead.
A Yes. There's still a turnbuckle here
also. You can see the edge of it.
Q Oh, yeah. So is the zip tie just being
"in-l -!-inipt"
Page 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
put this together; right?

A Yes, sir, it is.
Q All right. Could it be that the force of
the recoil on the chain pulling on the turnbuckle
which is attached to the shell deflector, could it
be that that's what caused the damage to the shell
deflector?
A If it did, I didn't see it.
Q ls that possible?
A There would have to be an awfully weak
weld there to break just from that, but that would
be possible.
Q So you think if it were solidly welded it
would take more pressure than the recoil forces of
the Defendant to cause that break?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any idea what the pressure in
the recoil mechanism is when the Defendant is fired?
A Not in pounds, no, sir.
Q Do you know what it is in some other unit?
A No, sir.
Q But whatever it is, you don't think it's
enough to break that joint?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ever know what the recoil force
1598
(29) Page 113 - Page 116
RIF
Max M. KJngery
September 16, 2009

Page 117
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was and you don't recall it now?

A I've not measured what it was, no, sir.
Q Before you fired it, did you look up in
any documents you have or anything what the
pressures are for the ammunition that goes in the
Defendant?
A With respect to the recoil force?
Q Well, the pressures in the chamber from
A Well, that would be around-- I don't know
exactly what it is, but 762 - it's escaped me. I
can't remember right now off the top of my head what
the pressure is. It's in tens of thousands of
pounds per square inch.
But that's inside the chamber. That's
not -- the bolt is Jocked, and all of that force is
being contained up here. None of that force at that
point is acting upon the recoil mechanism.
Q And you don't have any idea what portion
of that force does act on the recoil mechanism?
A No, sir.
Q What is the type of recoil on the
Defendant?
A You mean what operates it?
Q Yes.
Page 119
the joint were properly connected either by welding
2 or silver soldering?
3
A With the turnbuckle on there?
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Yes.
A Because then you're also talking about
there's less of that force that's coming back here
operating this as being redirected here also,
because it's being contained across the entire
length of that chain. But even - if you apply the
entirety of that force, maybe, but I don't think so.
Q Okay. Let me explore what you were just
talking about there with the pressure on the
entirety of the chain. I can't tell from this
picture, but since you put it together you can
probably tell us. I see on the left side of the
Defendant there's the chain and the turnbuckle
attached to the shell deflector, and then the chain
comes down the rear of the Defendant. And you can't
see from this angle anyway, but presumably the chain
goes up the right side. Where does it go from
there?
A It was hooked right up here.
Q So it was connected to the front there?
A The front of the forearm, yes, sir.
Q Then a minute ago when you were talking
Page 118
Page 120
A It uses a gas piston.
Q So that's adjustable; is that correct?
s
6
7
s
9
10
l.l.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
A This does have an adjustment, yes, sir, a

three-position adjustment.
Q Do you recall what the adjustment was when
you were firing it?
A No, sir.
Q Did you make a note of it, or was it of
interest to you?
A No, sir, it was not, and I didn't make a
note of it.
Q So some portion of that pressure in the
chamber makes its way back to the recoil mechanism
when the gas goes down the tube, then; is that
right?
A Yes, sir. Once the bullet is fired and
passes a port, the gas port, the gases or a portion
of the gases are redirected down here through the
gas piston, force is applied to the piston, which
operates the mechanism.
Q And I think you've said you don't have any
idea how much pressure that is.
A No, sir.
Q But you're confident that it's
insufficient pressure to have broken that joint if
Page t 17 - Page 120 (30)
3
4
s
6
s
9
lo
ll
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about whatever the recoil force is, which is an

unknown quantity, you were saying that it's not all
applied to the turnbuckle?
A No, it's not all applied right here on
this ejector port.
Q Can you explain that or elaborate where
you think the forces are applied.
A Well, it would be spread out across - the
bulk it of would be applied here where the mounting
point was and then here on this ejection port. But
there would also - because your chain is in contact
with the receiver and pressing in, you're going to
have some transfer of force there as well. How much
that is, I can't tell you.
Q And just for the record, when you said
that some force would be applied here, you were
indicating the front of the Defendant where the
chain was attached?
A At the forearm, yes, sir.
Q And how was it attached there?
A The hook, just like the hook on the other
end of the turnbuckle.
Q So it was hooked to the front of the
Defendant?
A Yes, sir.
1599
\tin -U - ~u
ipt M
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 121
Page 123
Q And then it came around the back and then

went up the left side with the turnbuckle attached
3 to the shell deflector?
4
A Yes, sir.
5
Q But your testimony is there would be more
6 force at the front where it's hooked than there
7 would be on the shell deflector?
s
A No, I did not say that. I just said that
.9 not all of the force would be in one place.
10
Q Well, isn't there an equal amount of force
11 all the way down the length of the chain?
12
A If it were in a circle, I guess you could
13 say that. It's not in a circle.
14
Q Well, if you take just a piece of chain
15 and a straight line and you apply ten pounds of
16 force to one end, aside from whatever the weight of
11 the chain is -1e
A If it's in a straight line.
1.9
Q -- aren't you going to get ten pounds on
20 the other end as well?
21
A Yes, sir. That's in a straight line.
22 This isn't a straight line. You're wrapped around
23 two 90-degree comers and some other obstructions,
24 so none of the force is in a straight line in that
25 chain.
repeatable.
Q Were you demonstrating that to yourself,
3 or had you gone and got somebody to say hey, look at
4 this, I want you to see this?
5
A No, I just did that to myself.
6
Q Okay. I know you took several photographs
7 that are in your report, Exhibit 2. Did you take
e any photographs that are not in Exhibit 2?
.9
A No, sir.
10
Q Okay. And did you do any videotaping of
11 that testing?
12
A No, sir.
13
Q Or did anyone else do any videotaping of
14 it?
15
A No, sir.
16
Q Okay. Was there anyone else present when
11 you were doing the test firing?
18
A There were.
1.9
Q I don't mean just people who might have
20 been like in the room but weren't paying attention.
21 I mean people who were present and observing what
22 you were doing.
23
A I believe there were people that had
24 stepped into the room and watched, but I wasn't
25 paying attention to who they were.
Page 122
Q Did you perform any the further testing

then after you did this second test that we've been
3 discussing?
4
A Say that again. I'm sorry.
s
Q Did you perform any further -- well, let
6 me rephrase it. Did you perform any further firing
7 tests during your ~lassification? We're not talking
e about later.
.9
A Okay.
lo
Q During your classification did you perform
11 any further firing beyond the second test that we've
12 just been discussing?
13
A I fired an additional three rounds, so
14 there were two sets of three rounds fired with the
15 chain and turnbuckle and plate, and that was it.
16 All of those were done that same day.
11
Q So just to clarify, you're saying that you
lB essentially repeated the second test?
u
A Yes, sir.
20
Q Okay. Right after having performed the
21 second test?
22
A Yes, sir.
23
Q What was the purpose of repeating the
24 second test?
25
A Just to demonstrate that it was
1
\lin-l -SlriptO
Page 124
Q Would they have done that, for lack of a

better phrase, just out of curiosity or professional
3 interest?
4
A Yes, sir. Often when we have different
s firearms and someone is going to perform a test
6 fire, it's not at all unusual for another FEO to
7 step in just to observe the test firing.
s
Q Would you say that the Defendant was
.9 somewhat unique in terms of devices that you
10 receive?
11
A Yes, sir.
12
Q Would that have been one of the reasons
13 why others might have been interested in observing
14 it?
1s
A I suppose to. You would have to find out
16 who those are and ask them.
11
Q So the people who might have stepped in
18 and observed were -1.9
A That would have been my reason if it had
20 been me.
21
Q So they weren't even an unofficial part of
22 the classification? They were just observing out of
23 their own curiosity?
24
A Yes, sir.
25
Q And they didn't participate in the
1
2
1600
(31) Page 121 - Page 124
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 125
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 127
classification in any way?

l
A No, sir.
2
Q Okay. So is it safe to conclude, then,
3
that you were the only person participating in
4
the -- or observing the test firing who did
s
participate in the classification?
6
A I guess it would depend on what you mean
7
by that. Like I said, I don't know who was there.
8
It could be that either Mr. Spencer or Mr. Vasquez
9
had stepped in.
10
Now, you can say that they participated in
11
the classification because they approved the work
12
that I did. But as far as making the
13
classification, I was the only one who did that, and 14
I was the only one who performed the test firing.
15
Q So others who ultimately were involved by
16
some means in the process may have been present, but 17
you weren't really paying attention to them?
lB
A Right, sir.
19
Q Okay. I think I asked you earlier if
20
until some -- until after the Defendant was arrested 21
if anyone else at ATF had fired the Defendant. And 22
you said no, you thought you were the only one; is
23
that right?
24
A Yes, sir.
2s
Defendant?
A I don't know if it was in the letter or I
think possibly an e-mail. I believe it was an
e-mail that he had sent during the time period where
we were evaluating it.
Q Did he send that e-mail to you?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know to whom it was sent?
A No, sir.
Q But it was shared with you at some point?
A Uh-huh.
Q And then you observed the video?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in the video was Mr. Savage firing it
in the same kind of configuration that you did, with
something on the back holding the recoil mechanism?
A In a manner of speaking. When you say
that, vaguely something holding it, yes.
He used a MAC. I believe it was a MAC
machine gun receiver to contain the recoil
mechanism. And then of course the device has a
modified bolt as I described before. There's a bar
that's been added to the bottom of the carrier that
extends sufficiently low enough it could engage the
sear in a MAC receiver.
Page 126
Page 128
Q All right. Did anyone outside of ATF fire

it before it was arrested besides you?
3
A Mr. Savage had provided us with a web link
4 of video of himself and I believe at least one other
5 person I remember. There may have been another who
6 had fired the device before he ever submitted it to
7 us.
e
Q He gave you a url to a video on the
g internet?
10
A Yes, sir.
11
Q And did you view that video on the
12 internet?
13
A Yes, sir.
14
Q And that was a video of Mr. Savage firing
15 it?
16
A Mr. Savage fired it, yes. There was two
times
that he fired it. I believe there was at
17
least
one
other person who fired it.
18
Q Do you know who that was?
19
20
A No, sir.
21
Q Was it someone you recognized?
22
A No, sir.
Q And when did Mr. Savage provide that url
23
24 to the web video? Was that in his letter, or was
25 that outside of his letter that came with the
Q So that's a modification that was made to

the PK bolt carrier?
3
A Yes, sir.
4
Q Okay. To allow it to engage the sear on a
5 MAC lower receiver?
6
A Yes, sir.
7
Q So I understand, you're saying that in the
e video that you viewed of Mr. Savage and an unknown
9 person firing the Defendant, at that time the
10 Defendant was installed on a MAC lower machine gun
l l receiver?
12
A Yes, sir.
13
Q And is it your understanding that the
14 Defendant is designed to be installed on a MAC
15 machine gun receiver?
16
A It's been modified so that it will be able
17 to be installed into a MAC machine gun receiver,
18 yes.
19
Q Has it been -- when you say the Defendant
20 has been modified, are you saying that modifications
21 were made after it was manufactured to enable that?
22
A I would say during the manufacturing
23 process or as part of the manufacturing process.
24
Q So the Defendant was manufactured so that
25 it would enable its installation on a MAC machine
Page 125 - Page 128 (32)
1601
\li11-l'-Srrip1!l<1
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 129
Page 131
gun receiver?
1 so I just wanted to make sure it's clear what we're
2 talking about.
A Yes, sir.
3
Q If it was manufactured that way, then
3
When you said you believe that's what it's
4
for,
what's
the "that"?
4 would you also assume it was designed to do that?
5
A Yes, sir.
s
A The Defendant.
6
Q Are you aware of any other kind of fireann
6
Q Well, I think you're describing a purpose.
7 receiver, frame, or anything that the Defendant can
7 Maybe if we just repeat your last answer I'll try to
e be installed on without further modification?
e clarify it that way.
9
A No, sir.
9
MR. VISCOMI: Would you put that question
lo
Q What's your understanding of the purpose
10
to him again, just so there's no confusion.
11 of the Defendant?
11 BY MR. MONROE:
12
A I believe the purpose is 12
Q Well, I think the question was do you
13
MR. VISCOMI: Just for the record, I'd
13 believe that the intention of installing the
14
object to that question. I think it calls for
14 Defendant in a MAC machine gun receiver is some kind
15
something that this witness would not have
15 of subterfuge or sham as opposed to an actual
16
personal knowledge of. But I would instruct
16 purpose.
17
MR. VISCOMI: And just again I would
17
him to answer ifhe knows an answer.
18
THE WITNESS: The stated purpose in the
18
restate the same objection I made earlier.
19
letter was to mount it onto a -- or I'm
19
THE WITNESS: I can't really say what is
20
assuming. It wasn't stated. The question was
20
in Mr. Savage's mind.
21
asked that we affirm that it was designed
21 BY MR. MONROE:
22
exclusively to be used with a MAC machine gun. 22
Q Well, you testified you're sure that the
23
But I believe its purpose is to have a
23 purpose of that is to have an unregistered machine
24
machine gun, to have a machine gun be able to
24 gun.
25
be manufactured and produced on the market
25
A I said that my belief was that's what it
1
Page 130
Page 132
without being classified as a machine gun.

1 was. I also said I can't say what's in the
BY MR. MONROE:
2 Defendant -- or in Mr. Savage's mind.
3
Q So are you saying that you don't believe
l
Q Okay. So -4 it was intended to be mounted on a MAC machine gun
4
A The Defendant, again, doesn't have a
s receiver?
s brain.
6
A I believe it was.
6
Q So, I mean, is it accurate to say that
7 from your perspective that's a result that's
7
Q Are you saying that that purpose was a
8 subterfuge or a sham?
a obtained, that it's an unregistered machine gun?
9
MR. VISCOMI: The same - well, a
9
A If - no. If it would be classified as a
10
different objection, just calls for
10 short-barreled rifle, my belief is that that
11 classification would be improper. It's a machine
11
speculation.
12
THE WITNESS: I can't say exactly what's
12 gun, and it should be classified as a machine gun.
13
in your Defendant's mind, but it appeared to me 13
Q I understand that, and that's largely what
14
that that's what it would be used for ifhe
14 the case is about. What I was getting at is whether
15
wants it classified as a short-barreled rifle
15 or not you believed it really is intended to mount
16
and not a machine gun when in fact it is a
16 on a MAC machine gun or if you believe -17
machine gun. I don't know. I mean, that's my
11
A Yes, it is.
le
Q Okay. You don't believe that's some kind
18
belief.
19 of, again, subterfuge or sham in order to circumvent
19 BY MR. MONROE:
20
Q I just want to clarify a couple things
20 firearms law?
21 there. You said what's in the Defendant's mind. I
21
A Mounting it on a MAC machine gun, no.
22 think that might have been misspeaking. You meant 22
Q And what's the normal caliber for a MAC
23 the Claimant's mind?
23 machine gun?
24
A Yes. I doubt the Defendant has a mind.
24
A Well, the MAC design is in .380,
25
Q Okay. And then you used a few pronouns,
2s 9 millimeter, or .45 caliber.
l
\I in- l'-~lri ptQ.
1602
(33) Page 129 - Page 132
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 133
Page 135
Q And what's the caliber of Defendant?

A This is 7.62 X 54R.
Q So when you mount the Defendant on a MAC
machine gun lower, is the result that the caliber is
changed to 7.62 X 54R?
A No, sir.
Q What is the result in terms of the
caliber?
A There is no result. It doesn't change the
caliber of the MAC at all.
Q Does the MAC lower have a caliber?
A By itself, no.
Q Okay. So what determines what the caliber
of the MAC machine gun is?
A The upper that's placed on it. Well,
that's not entirely true. You're not going to fit a
9-millimeter, or you may be able to, but you're not
going to fit a .45 caliber MAC upper or a
9-millimeter MAC.
Q Well, that goes to interchangeably.
A Right.
Q Which I wasn't intending to get to. But
it is the upper that determines what the caliber is;
is that correct?
A A MAC upper for a MAC determines its
This in fact actually has a MAC upper

welded to it to allow it to be mounted to the MAC
firearm. The bolt is an open bolt, just like the
4 open bolt in a MAC upper. That's the similarities.
s
Q Okay. I think some of the things you
6 describe are probably features. The one
7 functionality I think I heard you say was that the
8 Defendant has a feeding device and a MAC upper docs
9 not. Is that right?
10
A The original MAC uppers do not, yes, sir.
11
Q Are there any other functions of the
12 Defendant that are different from a MAC upper other
13 than the feeding device?
14
A Well, this firearm is gas operated. A
15 standard MAC is operated by a blowback method of
16 operation. That would be different.
17
Q Well, again, I don't mean to interrupt
18 you. I'm not focusing on how the different devices
19 might perform their functions. I'm focusing on the
20 functions themselves, if that change your answer at
21 all.
22
A I don't know exactly what you would be
23 getting at with 24
Q Well, for example, to make a small
2s diversion, some firearms, for example, have been a
Page 134
Page 136
1 caliber, yes, sir.

2
Q Right. And if you remove the upper from a
3 MAC machine gun and instead install the Defendant on
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the MAC lower, is the Defendant acting as the upper

for the MAC machine gun?
A No, sir. The Defendant is a firearm
receiver, a machine gun receiver.
Q Is it performing the functions of the
upper for the MAC machine gun?
A It forms a similar function, yes, sir.
Q Well, when you say it performs a similar
function, does that mean it's not identical?
A Correct.
Q What are the differences?
A A MAC upper is just a MAC upper. It's
just a collection of parts. This is a machine gun.
Q Well, aside from how you might classify
it, what are the differences in the functions that
are performed?
A Will, a factory MAC upper does not have
a -- well, I shouldn't say factory, because now
there's factory-produced MAC uppers that are
different. But in the original design of the MAC
upper there was no feed mechanism in the upper.
This has its own feed mechanism.
Page 133 - Page 136 (34)
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
blowback recoil; is that correct?

A Yes, sir.
Q And some have a gas operated recoil?
A Yes, sir.
Q They're both recoils?
A Yes, sir.
Q They're both performing the function of
recoiling?
A Yes, sir.
Q They just go about it different ways?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right. So that's the distinction I'm
drawing between the function that it performs and
how it performs that function. Does that help?
A Not exactly since I made that same
explanation as the differences between the two and
you objected to it.
Q Well, my point is they're both recoil
functions.
A Yes, sir.
Q So the function that's being performed is
recoiling?
A The bolt is recoiling, yes, sir.
Q Okay. And so the distinction I'm drawing
is that there are different methods of achieving
1603
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 137
Page 139
recoil.
1
A Yes, sir.
2
Q And I'm not interested in the methods that
3
4 the MAC upper might use compared to what the
4
5 Defendant might use to achieve the same function,
s
6
6 the function being, in that example, recoiling.
1 Does that help?
7
e
e
A Not exactly, because any machine gun, the
9 parts are going to cycle. They're going to move
9
10 back and forth through the forces of recoil, either
10
11 directly, as in a blowback, or through tapping off
11
12 of the energy of the expanding gases onto a piston
12
13 face. They're all going to recoil in that respect
13
14 if you take away the exact method of how they do
u
15
15 that. So in that respect, no machine gun is
16 different from any other machine gun.
16
17
17
Now, I take that back. The Gatling gun
18 would be different, and there's some chain guns that 18
19
19 are different, because they're actually driven by an
20
20 electric motor rather than using the forces of the
21
21 cartridges.
22
But other than that, a non-electrically
22
23 driven or non-motor driven method of operation, all 23
24 of them use some fonn of recoiling energy.
24
25
Q Okay. And the distinction again that I'm
25
1
2
3
Q Well, why don't we go back to something I

asked you earlier, and that is when you mount the
Defendant onto a MAC receiver, a MAC lower -A Yes.
Q -- I asked you ifone of the effects is
that the MAC is then operating at 7.62 X 54R
caliber. I think you said no. Is that right?
A You do not change the caliber of the MAC,
no.
Q Didn't I understand you to testify that
the MAC lower doesn't have a caliber?
A Correct.
Q So it's the MAC lower combined with an
upper receiver that determines a complete caliber;
is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And so when you attach a MAC lower that
doesn't on its own have a caliber to the Defendant,
at what caliber are you firing?
A You're firing the caliber that the
Defendant is chambered for, but the Defendant is the
one doing the firing. The MAC is simply acting as a
trigger mechanism for the Defendant.
Q Is that the only function the MAC is
perfonning?
Page 138
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trying to draw and what I'm asking you is -A Is this different than that MAC?
Q Is the Defendant different from a MAC
upper in terms of the functions it performs, not in
terms of how it performs those functions?
A Yes, in that this is a firearm receiver,
and it contains -- is designed to contain the fire
control components of this weapon.
The MAC upper is not the receiver of the
MAC, and it's not designed to contain all of the
fire control components. The receiver portion is.
And it provides housing not only for those
components but for the upper as well.
Q So I think we're being somewhat circular
here. The only function that I understand you to
say that the Defendant performs that the MAC upper
does not perform, at least on the original MAC
uppers, is a feed device. The other types of things
you describe like it having a MAC upper welded to
it, I'm not meaning that -- when I say the word
function, I'm not talking about what things it might
have attached to it. I'm talking about the actual
functions that it performs.
A Well, I'm not sure I understand exactly.
Is there a different way that you can ask that?
'lin-l -!-.uipl JI
Page 140
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Yes. Well, no. It also retains the

recoil mechanism because it has a plate in the back
of it that would contain this recoil mechanism.
Q So the MAC lower provides a trigger and
provides a container for the recoil mechanism?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then when you fire the combination of
the Defendant and the MAC lower, you're firing at
7.62 X 54R?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when you fire the combination of a MAC
lower with a MAC upper, you're firing at the caliber
of that particular MAC upper; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q So if you take a MAC machine gun, a
complete machine gun that's, say, a 9 millimeter and
you remove the upper and you mount the Defendant on
the lower, that machine gun that you previously
would have fired at 9 millimeters you're now firing
at 7.62 X 54R?
A I don't believe the 9-millimeter MAC would
fit on this, but assuming you can get it to fit,
yes, sir.
Q Okay. I'm handing you an object that for
the sake of discussion I'll call object I. Could
1604
(35) Page 137 - Page 140
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 141
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
io
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 143
you take a look at that and see if you can identify

l
A Well, you would need rivets and a method
it.
2 of compressing the rivets. You'd probably want some
3 simple hand tools to assist you with various parts
A Yes.
4 of it to make it easier. It's not going to take a
Q What is that?
A This is a PK type receiver, and this
5 great deal of complicated machinery or tools.
Q What would you use to compress the rivets?
particular one is a semi-automatic version of the PK 6
type receiver.
7
A There's different ways to do it. You can
Q How do you know it's semi-automatic?
8 use a press. There's tools specifically made for a
A There were two primary features that were
9 rivet gun, specifically made for compressing the
required in order to make the PK type receiver auto 10 rivets. Like I said, a press and a die setup. I
only. One of those is a blocking bar, which I see
l l guess I could hand-make some type of press using a
present in this firearm receiver, and the other is
12 screw.
enlargement of the left side bolt guide rails.
13
Q Okay. How long do you think it would take
Q Now, does that object 1, does that house
14 you to do that? If you had all the parts assembled
the bolt?
15 and the tools handy, how long would it take you to
A This would, yes.
u do it?
Q What about the firing mechanism?
17
Well, let me back up even further. Do you
A This would provide housing for the firing
18 have the skills to do that?
19
A Yes. lfl had all the tools here, I would
mechanism, yes.
20 say not more than a day, certainly, on the first
Q Okay. And is it threaded at the forward
position to receive the barrel?
21 one. Once I've done one, I could probably do it in
A No, sir.
22 a few hours.
23
Q So when you're talking about a day, you're
Q And if you were going to take object 1 and
2 4 talking about most of an eight-hour day?
turn it into a complete firearm, what would it take
to do that?
2s
A Yes, sir.
Page 142
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 144
l
Q And you said that that is a semi-automatic
A You mean a functioning firearm?
2 receiver, and you identified a blocking bar and a
Q Yes, sir.
J widened rail is what makes it a semi-automatic
A Well, you're going to need a front
trunnion, a rear trunnion. You'll need the barrel,
4 receiver. Is that right?
5
A Yes, sir, the left side rail.
of course, to install into the trunnion, the gas
cylinder system. You're going to need a -- I said
6
Q Okay. And just so it's clear, is the rail
7 a groove, or is there a raised portion of metal?
rear trunnion, I believe -- top cover, the feed tray
cover and the feed tray mechanism and the -- I don't 8
A A rail is usually a raised portion of
know the exact nomenclature off the top of my head, 9 metal.
but the mechanism which operates the feed tray pawl. lO
Q So if you wanted to turn that receiver
That's all you need to make it fire. To
l l into a machine gun receiver, what would you have to
be a complete firearm you would also more than
12 do?
likely want a butt stock on it. It depends on the
13
A I would want to defeat the two primary
configuration you would want. You would want a
14 features, the left side rail and the bolt blocking
pistol grip and a trigger mechanisms here unless you 15 bar.
just wanted to use the charging handle as a trigger
16
Q And if you were going to choose the I
mechanism, a fore-grip. I think I said bolt and
l 7 guess simplest or most straightforward method of
bolt carrier group, which would include the buffer
18 doing that, what would it be?
l9
A I would drill these weld points out and
and recoil spring.
Q Okay. I know that sounded like a lot of
20 pry out this blocking bar. And then I would widen
parts, but are those all commercially available?
21 the -- I would take a machine gun bolt and widen the
A Yes, sir.
22 -- actually it's the bolt carrier, widen the guide
Q Okay. So assuming you had assembled all
23 rail slot on the bolt carrier. That would probably
those commercially available parts, do you know what 24 be the easiest.
tools it would take to put all that together?
25
Q So when you're talking about taking the
Page 141 - Page 144 (36)
1605
\lin-l _..,uip11!i
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 145
welds out, you're talking about the welds that hold

l
the blocking bar on; is that right?
2
A Yes, sir.
3
4
Q The original - strike that. When that
4
5 was manufactured, I presume that means at some point
s
6 there wasn't a blocking bar on it. It had to be
6
1 added, is that right, in part of the manufacturing
7
s
a process?
9
A During the manufacturing process, yes.
9
10
Q Since it's welded on, it must have been
10
11 done after the shell was created; is that right?
11
12
A Yes, sir.
12
13
Q Okay. And then you said you would do that
13
14 and then you would also machine the bolt carrier;
u
15 Is that right?
15
16
A Yes, sir.
16
17
Q Okay. And that, you changed the rules of
11
1s the game a little bit, because I asked you what you
1s
19 would do to do that. Are you saying that it's not
u
20 possible to do anything to that so that you wouldn't
20
21 have to make any changes to the bolt carrier?
21
22
A I see what you're saying. I didn't mean
22
23 to change the rules.
23
24
Q Okay. No problem.
24
25
A I would defeat this feature by the
25
1
2
3
Page 147
that part of the original shell manufacture?

A It's attached.
Q How is it attached?
A This is riveted in place.
Q It's riveted on?
A Uh-huh. There would be another method.
You could pop those rivets out and just put a new
rail in.
Now, I would have to compare this to an
original of the exact location of these rivets
whether you would want to re-use those rivet points
or new ones. But that would be another way of doing
that.
Q That would require having a different rail
available; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would it be possible to take those rivets
out and modify the rail and then reinstall it?
A You could.
Q Would that be simpler than trying to
modify the rail in place, or not necessarily?
A It would ensure less damage to anything
else and allow to you make it look pretty.
Q It might take you a little bit longer?
A Yeah.
Page 146
Page 148
modification of the bolt guide rail. That would be

l
Q But you'd perhaps do a more professional
simpler than defeating the feature itself.
2 job that way?
3
Q Okay. If you were stuck with having to
3
A Certainly.
4 work with just that receiver, object l, what would
4
Q Okay. If you were -- what tools would it
5 you do?
5 take to make those modifications, to bolt the
6
A I would grind down the guide rail. It
6 blocking bar and the rail?
7 would be rather -- it would actually be somewhat
7
A I would use a drill and a grinder. I'd
a difficult to do in this condition. It can be done.
a probably grab a set of pliers and a chisel. That
9
But you're talking about this receiver is
9 should be about it unless you're removing the guide
10 formed, and you're going to have to get your cutting 10 rail. Then you need more tools. You'll need rivets
11 or grinding devices inside here and be moving them 11 to replace the ones you've removed and some way of
12 around inside here. It can be done. Just I
12 compressing the new rivets to install them.
13 wouldn't choose to do it that way.
13
Q Okay. And if you had those tools
14
Q And I assume you're saying that because
14 available, you think you have the skills to do that
15 it's somewhat delicate work or has to be done pretty 15 work?
16 well in order to function properly, and there's a
16
A Yes.
17 better chance of -17
Q How long do you think it would take?
1e
A No. I just wouldn't do it that way. You
1a
A It would depend on how hard the steel was,
19 can hog it out and it will still work.
19 but not very long. Not more than a day, certainly.
20
Q Okay.
20
Q And again, you're talking about an
21
A It doesn't have to look pretty. And I've
21 eight-hour day?
22 seen a lot of conversions that don't.
22
A Yes, sir.
23
Q They're ugly, but they work?
23
Q And when I first asked you what you would
24
A Yes, sir.
24 do to convert that to a machine gun, you talked
25
Q Is that rail attached to the shell, or was
25 about having to convert both the blocking bar and
l
\li11l -',criptO.
1606
(37) Page 145 - Page 148
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 149
the rail somehow; is that right?

A Either convert them or defeat them in some
3 way, yes.
4
Q And then I guess the original alternative
s you suggested was making modification to the bolt
6 carrier instead of to the rail on the receiver.
7
A Yes.
a
Q I guess if someone were to make a
9 modification to the bolt carrier, that wouldn't
lO really result in the receiver being a machine gun,
11 would it?
12
A If they only modified the bolt carrier,
13 no.
l4
Q So in order to convert that into a machine
15 gun, that meaning object 1, you'd have to do
16 something to defeat, as you say, both the blocking
l 1 bar and the rail?
lB
A Yes, sir.
19
Q I'm showing you another object, and for
20 the sake of discussion we'll call it object 2. And
21 I ask you to take a look at that and see if you can
22 identify that.
23
A This is a modified semi-automatic receiver
24 that's been modified. It's been modified into a
25 machine gun.
Page 151
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
2s
A Yeah, if you could.

Q Is object 2 -- I think you said it was or
originally was a PK type semi-automatic receiver; is
that right?
A It appears to have been, yes, sir.
Q And when it was in its original state,
then it would have been substantially identical to
object l?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Now, you've mentioned a couple
times that it's been modified. Can you describe
what the modifications are.
A The lower floor, at least a large portion
of the floor of the receiver has been removed such
that the bolt blocking bar, the machine gun bolt
blocking bar is removed. And the mounting point for
an original PK type machine gun trigger group is no
longer present, and the mounting point for a tripod
or accessory mounting point for this firearm is no
longer present.
Q And what is the result of those
modifications?
A As I said, that's sufficient to make this
a machine gun receiver.
Q So would a machine gun bolt fit into
Page 150
Q All right. Well, when you say a modified

semi-automatic receiver, what kind of semi-automatic
3 receiver?
4
A Originally it looks to have been a PK type
s semi-automatic receiver, but as I said, now it's a
6 machine gun receiver.
7
Q So aside from the modifications that
a you're identifying, which we'll talk about in a
9 second, are you saying that object 2 is identical to
10 object 1?
11
A No.
12
Q And then just to clarify, are we saying
13 other than the modifications you're describing or
l4 that you mentioned?
15
A Other than, yeah, that he, or whoever,
16 this has been modified so that it no longer has a
17 bolt blocking bar, a machine gun bolt blocking bar.
18 And that would be the primary thing that's required
19 to make that into a machine gun receiver, and that's
20 what's been done.
21
Q And so just clarify, object 1 and
22 object 2, they're identical except object 2 you're
23 saying has been modified so that it's no longer a
24 semi-automatic receiver? Let me ask it a different
2s way.
l
Page 149 - Page 152 (38)
Page 152
object 2?
A Not an unmodified one, no.
3
Q And why is that?
4
A Well, the left side guide rail is also -s it's still thick.
6
Q So the guide rail on object 2 has not been
1 modified?
a
A No, it has not.
9
Q Okay. And when we were talking about
10 object 1 and you were describing what you would have
l l to do to tum it into a machine gun, you said you'd
12 have to take out the blocking bar and modify the
13 rail; is that right?
14
A To make it shoot, yes, sir.
15
Q And object, 2 you said that the blocking
16 bar has been removed but the side rail has not been
17 modified; is that right?
18
A That's correct.
19
Q But you'd still say that it's a machine
20 gun?
21
A Yes, sir.
22
Q Could you explain what appears to be a
23 discrepancy in what you've said.
24
A Well, the primary feature -- there's two
25 features that make this object number 1 a
l
1607
\lin-l
-~nipt
'
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 155
Page 153
l
semi-automatic receiver. That is the left guide
2 rail thickened and the machine gun bolt blocking

3 bar. If you remove any one of those features, you
4 would say that it is a machine gun.
Now, in order to make it fire, you're
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to have to either remove or defeat both of

those features. So with the object number 2 you're
still going to have to have a modified machine gun
bolt.
Q How do you come to the conclusion, if
there are I guess two features on object I that make
it semi-automatic or, I guess said another way, make
it not a machine gun, what you're saying is if you
remove one of those features but leave the other one
intact, that's sufficient for object number 1 to be
essentially object number 2 and become a machine
gun. Is that right?
A Restate that again, please.
Q It's kind of a long question, but I just
want to make sure I understand it. Object 1 has two
features that you've identified that make it not a
machine gun?
A Right.
Q And those two features are the blocking
bar and the widened side rail?
And so in that condition we would say that it is a
2 machine gun.
3
This is similar to I guess an Uzi. You
4 have a bolt blocking rail in there. You remove
s that, and it's been classified as a machine gun.

6 Depending upon the trigger mechanism you use, you
7
may still need to widen the sear slots in the bottom
8 of the receiver. But just removing the guide rail

9 or the bolt blocking bar is sufficient to make that
10 a machine gun, and that's the same here.
ll
Q Just as a point of clarification, if you
12 did just the opposite, if you narrowed the guide

13 rail but left the blocking bar intact, would you
14 have converted it to a machine gun?
15
A In my opinion, no.
16
Q So to summarize, two features make it not
17 a machine gun. If you eliminate one of those

18 features, you've made it a machine gun. If you
19
eliminate the other feature, you have not made it a
20 machine gun. Is that your testimony?

21
MR. VISCOMI: Objection. I don't think
22
that's a clear restatement of his testimony,
because these features are different.
23
24
MR. MONROE: Well, that's why I'm asking
him if that's his testimony.
25
Page 154
1
A Yes, sir.
2
Q And if you take out one of those features,
3 one feature being the blocking bar, you end up with
4 something like object number 2; is that right?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
, 22
23
24
25
A Yes, sir.
Q And you still have one of the features
intact in object number 2, that being the widened
side rail?
A Yes, sir.
Q So you've taken out one but not both of
the features that make object number I not a machine
gun, but your conclusion is you've turned it into a
machine gun. And that just seems counterintuitive,
so I'm asking you to elaborate how you come to that
conclusion.
A Okay. The primary feature and the most
important feature is this bolt blocking bar, machine
gun bolt blocking bar. It would prevent a bolt from
going -- an open bolt type of machine gun bolt from
going all the way forward. So even if you defeated
the side rail by widening the slot in the bolt
carrier, which is not too difficult, this would
still not function .
If you remove the bolt blocking bar, it's
a rather simple matter to defeat the guide rail.
Page 156
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: Let me restate it.

BY MR. MONROE:
Q Okay.
A I believe it has been FTB's position that
if you remove any one of those two features you have
created a machine gun receiver. My opinion is that
this bar is the most important piece, and if you
remove the guide rail but not the bar, I'm not
certain that you've made a machine gun. It's FTB's
position, official position, it's my understanding
that it's FTB's position that if you remove any one
of these two receivers -- or features, it is a
machine gun.
Q Okay. You don't necessarily agree with
that, though?
A I would want to experiment with it more
myself. I've not experimented with the semi-auto
receiver alone to say that. The best way I could
answer it is just to say that if you removed the
bolt blocking bar, you've made a machine gun.
MR. MONROE: Okay. All right. Let's take
a short break.
(Deposition in recess from 3:03
to 3:15 p.m.)
BY MR. MONROE:
1608
(39) Page 153 - Page 156
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 157
Q We were talking about the modifications

you'd need to go from something similar to object I
3 to object 2 and discussing removal of the bolt
4 blocking bar in object I, narrowing the rail on
s object I. Between those two, is one easier to do
6 than the other?
7
A Just on the Q If you're starting with object 1 and you
s
9 were going to choose to do one or the other, is one
10 easier to do than the other?
11
A In order to make it fire automatically or
12 just to do it?
13
Q Just to either remove the blocking bar or
14 narrow the rail.
15
A I guess it would depend upon the skills of
16 the person and the tools available, but nearly the
17 same. It may be a little bit easier to take the
18 blocking bar out. If you're defeating them to make
19 it fire, you have to remove the blocking bar.
20
Q Okay. Going back to object 2, then, you
21 said a -- I don't remember if you used an adjective
22 or not -- a portion of the floor was taken out; is
23 that right?
24
A Yes.
25
Q How much of the floor has been taken out?
1
Page 159
A Object 1, yes. I'm sorry. Just to make

it fire, you're not going to need to install an
3 original trigger mechanism. You will need a front
4 trunnion, rear trunnion, the feed mechanism group,
5 barrel group, gas cylinder. You're going to need
6 a -- I said rear trunnion -- a bolt group, including
7 the recoil mechanism. Add that's all you need to
a make either one of these fire.
9
To finish it, to finish this one out,
10 number I, into looking just like a PK, you would
11 also put a pistol grip, trigger mechanism, a hot
12 stock, a forearm guard, those types of things.
13
Q Okay. And if you did all those things to
14 object number 1 you'd have a functional
15 semi-automatic firearm; is that right?
16
A Yes.
17
Q Okay. And then you said it would take the
lB same thing to make object 2 o fully functional
19 firearm; is that right?
20
A Yes.
21
Q And if you did the same things to object 2
22 that you did to object 1, would you have a fully
23 functional machine gun or a semi-automatic firearm?
24
A It would be a machine gun.
25
Q Would you have to make any modifications,
l
Page 158
2
3
4
s
6
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
2s
A About four-fifths of it.

Q And that four-fifths that was taken out
included the portion that had the blocking bar in
it; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And a good bit more?
A Yes, sir.
Q ls object I -- I mean, I recognize it's
not a complete firing firearm, but in its present
form is it usable as a receiver?
A Yes.
Q What would you -- well, let me say it
another way.
I asked you earlier what you would have to
do to tum object 1 into a complete functioning
firearm, and you described all the parts you'd need
and so on. And so now I'm asking you, if you were
going to tum object l into a complete functioning
firearm, what would it take to do that?
A The exact same.
Q Nothing different?
A You couldn't go quite as far. When I was
describing this I said- I left at one point just
sufficient to make it fire.
Q And the "this" was object l?
Page 157 - Page 160 (40)
Page 160
any further modifications for it to function as a

machine gun?
3
A Not to this. You're going to have to
4 modify the left guide mil slot in the bolt carrier.
s
Q Okay. So you would -6
A Fitting parts, basically.
7
Q So you couldn't take exactly the same
a parts that you used on object 1 to make it a
9 finished firearm and use them on object 2 without
10 modification?
11
A With that one exception.
12
Q And that exception was you'd have to
13 modify the bolt carrier?
14
A Yes, sir.
is
Q Now, is the fact that object 2 is missing
16 I think you said about four-fifths of the bottom
17 plate, is that a concern in terms of compromising
lB its integrity or its safety?
19
A No, sir.
20
Q It doesn't matter that that much material
21 is missing?
22
A No, sir.
23
Q So when you assembled it, something else
24 would hold it in place? I mean, the reason I ask is
2s object I seems fairly rigid, and object 2 seems kind
l
1609
\lin-l
-~lripfoli
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
1.9
20
21
22
23
24
25
of springy because it's missing so much material.

A Right. I see what you're saying, yes.
The front rear trunnions would give more rigidity to
it
Q Okay. Let me give you what I'm going to
call object 3 and ask you to identify that, please.
A This is a bolt carrier group for a PK type
machine gun.
Q And will that fit in either object 1 or
object 2?
A I don't believe it would. We can try.
Q Okay. That's why they're there.
A No, sir.
Q And why won't it?
A Because the left guide rail has not been
modified by opening it up.
Q So object 3 is an unmodified bolt carrier?
A For a PK type machine gun, yes, sir.
Q Okay. And one of the features you
identified in both object 1 and object 2 that
defeats machine gun operation is the widened rail.
And it appears as though both of those devices,
object I and object 2, have the intact rail and do
defeat machine gun operation; is that right?
A No. It defeats insertion of an unmodified
Page 163
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
l.9
20
21
22
23
24
25
blocking bar and the widened guide rail; is that

right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. And both object 1 and object 2 have
a widened guide rail; is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And object 2 is missing the blocking bar?
A Yes, sir.
Q And neither object 1 nor object 2 will
accept the bolt carrier that's unmodified, which is
object 3, because they both have a widened guide
rail?
A And because this is unmodified.
Q "This" is object 3?
A Object 3 is unmodified, yes, sir.
Q So in order to get to machine gun
operation with either object 1 or object 2, you
you'd either have to modify the guide rails on
object 1 or 2 or you'd have to modify the bolt
carrier; is that right?
A For to it fire automatically?
Q Yes.
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. Now, does object 2 appear similar
to you to the portion of a PK receiver that was used
Page 162
machine gun bolt.

Q So in order to make either object 1 or
3 object 2 function as a machine gun, you'd either
4 have to further modify either one of those objects
5 or you'd have to modify the bolt carrier; is that
6 correct?
7
A I'm sorry. If you would repeat that.
a
MR. FOSTER: I'll object as a compound
.9
question.
lo
MR. VISCOMI: Which counsel is defending
11
this witness?
12
MR. FOSTER: We're both sworn on the case.
13
MR. MONROE: There's one lawyer per '
14
witness, and one of you is defending him, and
15
the other is free to, you know, confer and
16
things like that. But we're not having two
17
counsels defending the witness.
18
MR. VISCOMI: I would raise the objection,
19
then. It's a compound question. If you just
20
break it up for clarity's sake, I'm sure he can
21
answer it.
22 BY MR. MONROE:
23
Q When you were describing earlier the
24 features in a PK receiver that are design features
25 to defeat machine gun operation, you mentioned a
l
Page 164
to manufacture the Defendant?

A It's similar, but the Defendant's been
modified further.
Q The portion of the PK receiver in the
Defendant was modified further?
A Yes.
7
Q In what ways?
e
A There is an area that has been added onto
.9 the upper rear, just behind where the trunnion would
10 fit, where the latch cover fits. This latch cover,
11 by the way, on the original was part of the rear
12 trunnion. But I don't know how to describe the
13 shape of it.
14
The sides of it, i would say, are sort of
15 triangular, and the top is folded down to where it
16 forms a partial hoodlike area at the rear of the
17 receiver.
lB
This also has, as I described earlier, the
l.9 Defendant - by this I meant the Defendant has
20 added to it, welded to it a section of a MAC upper.
21 There's also a plate or a Ushaped section of metal
22 that's attached to the forward end of the receiver
23 enclosing the bottom. And then of course it has the
24 trunnion and feed tray and all of that attached to
25 the bottom.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1610
(41) Page 161Page164
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 165
Page 167
Q Well, let me clarify. I wasn't asking you

1
Q And does it provide housing for the firing
if object 2 is identical to the Defendant. I was
2 mechanism?
really asking if it looked like object 2 was similar
3
A Yes, sir.
4 to the portion of a PK receiver that was used in
4
Q And is that threaded in the forward
s making the Defendant.
5 position to accept the barrel?
6
A Well, yes. Yes.
6
A No, sir.
7
Q Okay. And I understand from earlier
7
MR. MONROE: If you would mark this,
e discovery responses that the government's position
e
please.
9 is that the act ofremoval of the portion of the
9
10 floor plate in the receiver used to make the
lo BY MR. MONROE:
11 Defendant is what was the creation of a machine gun. 11
12 Is that correct?
12 Exhibit 3, and it's two pages containing three
13
A No. Removing the bolt blocking bar is
13 photographs that I'm representing to you are
14 what made it a machine gun.
14 photographs of object 2. I'm just asking you to
15
Q And that was accomplished by the removal
15 tell me whether they fairly and accurately represent
16 of n portion of the bottom plate?
u object 2.
17
A Yes. But if you were to remove the rest
17
A Yes, sir. They don't show if that's the
18 of the floor plate and leave that blocking bar,
l8 exact object but the same representation.
19 you've still got a semi-auto receiver.
19
Q You can't identify anything that's a
20
Q So the act of removing a portion of the
20 feature of object 2 that's not apparent in the
21 floor plate that included the blocking bar -21 photographs?
22
A Yes, sir.
22
A They appear identical. But I can't see
23
Q -- created a machine gun?
23 the serial number on this one, and I can see a
24
A Yes, sir.
24 serial number on this one. I'm sorry. I shouldn't
25
Q So if you were to go back to Exhibit 1 in
25 say -- I cannot see a serial number in the photo,
l
2
3
Page 166
the manufacturing steps, the point in the process

where the machine gun was created was where the
3 Defendant was cut on the scribe marks; is that
4 right?
s
A Well, I don't know, because he doesn't
6 state where the scribe marks were or give dimensions
7 or locations.
a Q Okay. Assuming those scribe marks were
9 where the portion of the receiver that was used,
10 that was cut out, would that be the place, the point
l l in the process when the machine gun was
12 manufactured, in the government's view?
ll
A Yes, sir.
14
Q So when you said before that the same
15 steps would have to be used to create a complete
16 firearm out of object 2 as out of object 1, does
17 that mean it would take you essentially the same
18 amount oftime to do so?
19
A Yes, sir.
20
Q Assuming you had the same tools and parts
21 available.
22
A Yes, sir, it is. What's that I thought
23 you to mean.
24
Q Now, does object 2 house the bolt?
25
A Provides housing for the bolt, yes, sir.
l
Page 165 - Page 168 (42)
Page 168
but I can see a serial number on object number 2.

Q Okay. Now let me hand you what we'll call
3 object number 4. Can you identify that?
4
A Yes.
5
Q What is that?
6
A That's an Uzi machine gun receiver.
7
Q What makes it a machine gun receiver?
s
A It does not have present the bolt blocking
9 bar.
10
Q Where does the bolt blocking bar go?
11
A In this receiver it goes on the inside of
12 the right wall towards the rear here.
13
Q And in the process of manufacturing the
14 receiver, I guess you'd start with what you have in
15 your hands, this object 4, and then you would add
16 that blocking bar. Is that right?
17
A Yes, sir.
l8
Q Okay. So in the manufacturing process if
l9 you get as for as you are right now with object 4
20 and you haven't installed the blocking bar, because
21 there's no blocking bar present, you're saying that
22 makes it a machine gun?
23
A Yes, sir.
24
Q So if it were sold or transferred in its
25 condition just like that, you would expect that it
l
1611
\Jin-l -~cri11t M
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 169
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 171
would be sold or transferred as a machine gun?

l
A Yes, sir.
2
And
it
would
if
it
were
in
private
3
Q
hands, would it require registration as an NFA
4
firearm, assuming it was manufactured after 1986?
s
Well, I guess it would require registration -6
7
A Either way. It would require registration
either way unless it was possessed by the
8
government.
9
10
Q So in civilian hands it would have
required registration?
11
12
A Yes, sir.
13
Q And if it were manufactured after 1986, it
would be prohibited to be owned by civilians that
u
weren't SOT's?
15
16
A Correct.
17
Q So if you were a manufacturer of Uzi
receivers and you make objects such as object number 18
4, is it your testimony that if you sell them as the
19
manufacturer without the blocking bar in them so
20
they're in that exact condition as what you're
21
holding that they have to be sold as machine guns? 22
23
A Yes.
Do
have
any
experience
classifying
Uzi's?
24
Q
Yes.
I've
classified,
provided
25
A
A But aside from that, well, I don't know if

I could say that from this angle, simply because I
can't tell if that bolt guide rail's been widened on
that side. It does not appear to be from this
angle, but as I said, I can't see the whole thing.
Q Absent that feature, does it appear to be
a PK bolt carrier similar to object 3?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Let me show you object number 5 and
see if you can identify that.
A This is a Glock firearm frame.
Q And is that a semi-auto or a machine gun?
A Looking at it in this condition, I don't
know, but it appears to me to have been at least at
some time fired as a machine gun.
Q What is that based on?
A The material that's gone from the rear
portion of the receiver.
Q So you're referring to some wear marks?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are they wear marks, or are you saying
that it looks like it's been modified somehow to
become a machine gun?
A Well, I don't know if that is factory or
not. There's wear marks there. I don't know if the
Page 170
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
classification on some Uzi's, yes.

Q Have you classified Uzi machine guns?
A Yes.
Q Would it surprise to you to learn that FTB
considers that to be a GCA firearm and not a machine
gun?
A Yes.
BY MR. MONROE:
Exhibit 4, and I'm representing to you that's two
photographs showing two views of object number 4.
I'm just asking you if you can tell me if they
fairly and accurately represent object number 4?
A Yes.
BY MR. MONROE:
Q And then I'm showing you Exhibit 5, which
I'm representing to you is a photograph of object
number 3, the machine gun bolt carrier for the PKM.
Does that appear to fairly and accurately represent
object number 3?
A It does not show the left side guide rail
clearly.
Q Okay.
\li n-l -l.,n i pt l
Page 172
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
entire surface has been removed as a factory thing

or not. But from my observation, having a machine
gun sear, I guess, or trip, it's commonly referred
to as a chip or auto-sear in the slide, it will wear
right at that point.
Q So just to clarify -A So whether this was produced as factory as
a machine gun or whether someone installed something
on it, I'm saying that appears to be.
Q And are you -- I just want to clarify.
Are you saying that it's necessary to modify the
frame in order to -A No, no, no.
Q You're just saying that those look
something like wear marks indicative from having
been used as a machine gun?
A Yes, sir. So what I'm saying is I can't
say, looking at it at this moment, if this was
produced as a machine gun or not.
Q Okay. And can you say with a degree of
certainty that it was used as a machine gun? Or
could the wear marks that you're referring to be a
result of heavy semi-automatic use?
A You don't -- I've never seen that in this
model.
1612
(43) Page 169 - Page 172
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 173
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 175
Q Regardless of its age and amount of use?
A Right.
Q Okay. Now, if you have a--well,just
for clarification, the only model of Glock that's
actually made as a machine gun is a Glock 18; is
that right?
A Yes.
Q And the Glock 18 is substantially the same
as a Glock 17 only it has the auto sear that you
referred to?
A I believe so, yes.
Q And you can't tell by looking at object
number 5 whether -- well, you can't tell if it was
manufactured originally as a machine gun I think is
what you said.
A Right.
Q But you're fairly certain it was used as a
machine gun?
A (Witness nods head)
Q So at one time it had an auto sear in it?
A I believe. It has a mark that indicates
that to me.
Q And that sounded like some equivocation.
Are you not certain? I mean, it looks like it, but
you're not positive or --
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gun?
A Yes.
Q And if it doesn't have the auto sear, then
it's a semi-auto?
A Yes.
Q So ifl'm Glock and I'm manufacturing
handgun frames, would I manufacture it as a machine
gun because I intended to manufacture it with an
auto sear in it?
Let me ask that a different way. If the
frames are identical and I'm manufacturing frames,
why wouldn't I manufacture them all as semi-autos?
Under what circumstances would I manufacture one as
a machine gun frame?
A If you wanted to sell it as a machine gun
to fill out an order for machine guns.
Q Okay. And in order to fill that order I
would have to manufacture them with auto sears in
them -A Yes.
Q -- I guess. Is that right?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And is the auto sear a machine gun?
A Some of them are, yes.
Q Could you explain why some are and some
Page 174
Page 176 '
A I'm saying it looks like it is.
Q Okay. And you haven't seen a
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
semi-automatic Glock that had -A That same wear.

Q So the only time you've ever seen that is
when the Glock was used as a machine gun?
A Yes, sir.
Q So if we say for the sake of discussion
that that Glock had been used as a machine gun, what
would its current status be in terms of
classification?
A If the manufacturer manufactured the frame
as a machine gun frame, it would be a machine gun.
If it was -- and this is for any firearm -- if a
firearm has been converted into a machine gun by the
addition of parts, removal of those parts removes it
from machine gun classification.
Q Okay. So if, say, I'm Glock and I'm
making handgun frames, if the frame itself -- well,
let me strike that and say it differently.
I'm inferring from what you're saying that
the frame itself on a Glock doesn't make it a
machine gun or a semi-auto. Is that correct?
A Right.
Q It's the auto sear that makes it a machine
Page 173 - Page 176 (44)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
aren't.
A There are some auto sears that are
designed to be able to be installed into a semi-auto
slot and convert that semi-auto firearm into a
machine gun.
Q Okay.
A There are other slides that are designed
so that only the slide itself, the entire collection
of parts there would make this fire as a machine
gun.
Q And that's a difference in the slide?
A Uh-huh.
Q I just want to make sure I understand that
correctly. Are you saying that some slides will not
accept an auto sear?
A There's two types of auto sears.
Q Or are you saying that some slides will
only accept an auto sear?
A There's two types of auto sears. One is
installed into the side of the slot. The slide
itself is machined to accept that. There's another
on the Glock -Q I'm sorry. Are we talking about just
Glocks right now?
A Yes, sir.

1613
l\ Ii n-lJ-Srrip l<llJ
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 177
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
2s
Q Okay.
A On the Glock the rear of the slide has a
plastic plate, and that plate can be replaced by
another type of auto sear. They both perform the
same function. They're just installed in different
locations. And that requires no modification of the
slide in order for that to go in.
Q You're talking about the second type you
just described?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. That's the only type I've seen.
I'm not familiar with the other one.
A Okay.
Q So the second type, you said, is the type
where you can, I guess for lack of a better word, an
after-market type of thing that you can replace a
portion of the slide of the factory handgun; is that
right?
A Yes.
Q And then the first type that you talked
about that goes on the side of the slide, that has
to go on a slide that was manufactured or I guess
modified, perhaps, to accept it?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
Page 179
1
Q And then the slide also has the serial
2 number on it?
A I believe the first type does, yes.

Q The type where the auto sear goes on the
5 side of the slide?
3
A Yes.
Q And then the second type you talked about
where the auto sear goes on the rear of the slide -A Replaces that back plate.
Q And then that type has its own serial
number?
A Yes, sir.
Q Okay. I guess I'm still not clear, then,
why you would manufacture the frame as a machine gun
and register it that way when either the auto sear
or the slide is actually the machine gun.
MR. VISCOMI: Objection. Or actually, let
me just ask for clarification. When you say
you, are you referring to why Glock would do
that?
BY MR. MONROE:
Q Yeah. Why would the manufacturer register
the frame such as object number Sas a machine gun
if the auto sear by itself or in combination with
the slide is the machine gun?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
1B
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 180
Page 178
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Then the entire slide would convert that

into a machine gun.
Q The first type that you're talking about
that goes on the side of the slide?
A (Witness nods head)
Q So it's not just the auto sear by itself?
It's the auto scar in the slide that is a machine
gun?
A In that type.
Q Okay. So you've either got a type where
the standalone auto sear is a machine gun or the
auto sear plus the slide is a machine gun?
A Uh-huh.
Q So in either of those two configurations
the frame is not the machine gun?
A Correct. When Glock makes it from the
factory it's serialized -- I guess they're
serialized together on the first type. The second
type, the serial number would be on the plate on the
back, and that would be the machine gun.
Q Well, the frame has the serial number on
it; is that correct?
A Uh-huh.
Q Under the front of the trigger guard?
A Right.
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l 1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. VISCOMI: I would object. I think it

calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I don't think I could
answer that.
BY MR. MONROE:
Q Okay. Well, if you're manufacturing-- if
Glock manufactures a machine gun and sells it that
way, does it register both the frame as a machine
gun and the either auto sear or combination auto
sear and slide as a machine gun?
A If they've manufactured-~ my
understanding is if they've manufactured a
particular model as a machine gun, they would
register that model. If they've manufactured a
conversion device for a semi-auto firearm, they
would register the conversion device.
Q And in that first instance when you said
they would register that model, you mean the frame?
A Yes, sir, with the slide and everything
together.
Q Okay. So if someone were to buy a Glock
that was manufactured as a machine gun, and the
frame is registered as a machine gun and the slide
or slide and auto sear are not registered as a
machine gun, where does that leave the person ifhe
1614
(45) Page 177 - Page 180
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 181
owns another Glock on which that slide and auto sear

could fit? Does he have another collection of
3 parts?
4
A If he installed them on that other weapon,
5 he would manufacture a new machine gun, yes.
6
Q Well, you don't have to install them to
7 have a machine gun, do you? You just have to have
a the parts?
9
A Right.
10
Q So if you own two Glocks and one's a
11 machine gun and the part that's registered is the
1
12
13
14
frame, do you own two machine guns, assuming they're
the same size frame so the parts are

interchangeable?
1s
A Not necessarily, no, sir.
16
Q Whynot?
11
A It's registered with those parts together.
18 Now, if you have 11 Glock auto sear and it's
19 registered, you can move it from whichever weapon
20 you want to, because it's the machine gun that is
21 the registered part.
22
Q Well, my example was a firearm where a
23 frame was registered as a machine gun and the same
24 person owned another frame of the same size so that
2s the slide could be moved but isn't necessarily
Page 183
classification had been issued and then later was A Withdrawn?

Q - reversed, yes.
4
A Yes. I've had one recently. It was an
5 import evaluation of 6
MR. VISCOMI: I would just - at this
7
point I do think it's important that the
a
witness not discuss the substance of that,
9
because it gets into protected tax information
10
that he cannot disclose.
11
MR. MONROE: Okay.
12
MR. VISCOMI: But I think he could speak
13
about it in general terms without giving any
14
specifics about this particular item or
15
manufacturer or the importer.
16
MR. MONROE: That's fine.
17
THE WITNESS: Okay. In classifying
1e
firearms for importability, with respect to
19
pistols there's a point value that's given.
20
And I had a firearm that I initially classified
21
nonimportable because it missed a point value
22
which I had calculated improperly. That was
23
brought to my attention by the manufacturer,
24
and then I recalculated the point values and
25
found my error and approved it for importation.
l
2
3
Page 182
moved. Is that two machine guns or one?

A I'm not sure I completely understand your
question. He only has one machine gun.
4
Q Has anyone at ATF ever disagreed with a
s classification you made?
6
A With a classification I've made?
7
Q Yeah.
a
A I don't know.
9
Q Is that because you don't remember or
10 you've never been told?
11
A I've never been told.
12
Q So as far as you know, no ones's ever
13 disagreed?
14
A Uh-huh.
1s
Q Have you ever classified a firearm and
16 then the classification was later overturned?
17
A I've not had one that was overturned.
1a I've had one that was maybe where -- I'm not sure I
19 understand what you mean by overturned.
20
Q Well, I'll rephrase it.
21
A Well, I'm sure you're aware in the Olofson
22 case that my initial examination of that firearm
23 showed that it did not fire automatically. Then a
24 second examination showed that it did.
25
Q I was referring to an instance where a
1
2
3
Page 181 - Page 184 (46)
Page 184
BY MR. MONROE:
Q So you agreed with that modification or
3 that change?
4
A Well, it was my own mistake, so yes.
5
Q It wasn't a matter of even after it was
6 changed you disagreed with the change?
7
A No, sir.
a
Q Are you aware -- well, let me rephrase
9 that. When you classified the Defendant, I think
10 you said earlier that you'd made that classification
l l after you had discussed your findings with some
12 others. Is that right?
13
A No, sir.
14
Q Okay.
1s
A The letter was finalized after it had been
16 discussed with others. My determination on it was
1 7 finished by that point.
1e
Q And your determination, was it originally
19 that the Defendant is a machine gun?
20
A Yes, sir.
21
Q You didn't make a different determination
22 and then later change your mind or anything like
23 that?
24
A No, sir.
25
Q So you made your determination, and then
l
1615
RIF
Max M. KJngery
September 16, 2009

Page 185
2
3
5
6
e
9
io
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you discussed your report with others? Is that what

you're saying?
A Yes, sir. The substance of it was looked
at by legal counsel with respect to grammatical
errors and its application to law. They did not
make any suggestions as to change of the
detennination. I believe they made a suggestion as
to some grammar in the writing of that letter.
Q And are you aware of anyone within ATF
that disagreed with your classification of the
Defendant?
A No, sir.
(Claimant's Exhibit 5-B was marked.)
BY MR. MONROE:
Q I'm showing you what's been marked Exhibit
5. I'll represent to you --yeah, as Exhibit 5.
I'll represent to you that it's a photograph of
object 5. I realize that the features may not be
very distinguishable because it's black. But does
it fairly and accurately represent an object similar
to object 5, if not object 5 itself?
A Yes.
Q Do you know a David Pinckney at the ATF?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know an Ernest Lintner?
Page 187
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
way to give Savage back as much as he gives them.

If they truly had to mock that thing up in the
manner shown in the pictures, they should be ashamed
of themselves, regardless of who submitted it."
Have you seen that e-mail?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have any reason to believe that the
Savage referred to in that e-mail is anything other
than Mr. Savage, Len Savage?
A I don't know who it would refer to.
Q And then Mr. Lintner, where does he work?
I think you said you were familiar with him.
A Yes, sir. He works in the National
Fireanns Act Branch.
Q And what is their function?
A They are in charge of the National
Firearms -- NFRTR, and they enter registrations for
NFA firearms.
Q And the NFRTR is what?
A National Firearms Registration and
Transfer Record, ifl can get them all in order.
Q In a response to that e-mail from
Mr. Pinckney it looks like Mr. Lintner says, "I
wonder sometime if we don't 'manufacture' a fircann
in the process of getting it to work. That is, if
Page 186
Page 188
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you familiar with an exchange of
e-mails between Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Lintner in

January of2009 regarding the Defendant and
5 Mr. Savage?
6
A No, sir.
1
Q An e-mail I'm looking at appears to be
8 signed by a David -- sorry. I said David. I meant
9 Daniel Pinckney. Do you know him?
lo
A No, sir.
ll
Q Okay. It appears to be signed by Daniel
12 L. Pinckney, Program Analyst, Violent Crime Analysis
13 Branch. Are you familiar with that branch?
14
A Yes, sir.
15
Q What do they do?
16
A Completely, I'm not exactly sure. They're
17 located in our building there.
l8
Q You don't have any daily contact with
19 them?
20
A No, sir.
21
Q In documents produced by counsel there's a
22 January 28th, 2009 e-mail from Mr. Pinckney to
23 Mr. Lintner that says in part, apparently discussing
24 the Defendant and the classification, "With that
25 said, though, I do believe ATF/FTB goes out of their
3
\li11-t -"-uipt 1
s
6
1
e
9
lo
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
:z 3
24
25
someone in the public were to be caught with that

rig, would we want them charged with something? I
bet yes."
Have you seen that e-mail.
A No, sir.
Q Do you have any comment on that charge
from Mr. Lintner?
A Can I read it?
Q Sure. It's the one at the bottom of that
page.
A No, I don't have a comment on that.
Q Well, do you think there's any accuracy to
it?
A No, sir.
MR. MONROE: All right. Mark that,
please.
BY MR. MONROE:
Q It's been marked as Exhibit 6. I'll let
you hang onto it.
Then Mr. Pinckney replied back to
Mr. Lintner: "I remember seeing the pictures once
before. I do think Len is an ass, and deserves
everything he has brought on himself, but if we/they
have to stoop to that level to reject one of his
American Court Reporting Company, Inc,
1616
(47) Page 185- Page 188
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page189
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
projects, does it make us any better than him? If

anything, the zip ties, chain and metal plate should
be the illegal conversion device."
Did I read that accurately?
A Oh, I didn't realize you wanted me to
follow along. Yes, you've read that accurately,
except he also added a smiley face on his e-mail.
Q I stand corrected. I did not recite the
smiley face.
Do you have any response to the claim that
the zip ties, chain, and metal plate are an illegal
conversion device?
A I would say that his comment shows that he
doesn't understand the function of a machine gun or
the function of those items.
Q So you'd disagree with them?
A Yes.
Q Then Mr. Lintner finally responded to that
with, "I agree. If we alter course one way or the
other based on who submits it, then the tail is
wagging the dog, and in a case like this, one
manufacturer could use the agency to damage or wreck
market place competitors."
Did I read that accurately?
A Yes.
Page 191
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
or wrong. ATF will bankrupt him if he continues on

with his approach angle.''
Did I read accurately?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any comment on the discussion
of Mr. Savage testifying as an expert and FTB
hammering anything he submits?
A No. To my knowledge, that's never been
done.
Q Okay. Now, if you take a MAC upper and
attach the same chain, turnbuckle, and plate to it
and function it the same way you functioned the
Defendant, would you expect to get a similar result?
A No.
Q Why not?
A It would only fire once.
Q And why is that?
A Because the original or unmodified type of
MAC upper has no ammunition feeding source.
Q And what about one that had an
after-market feeding source?
A Then it would fire, I would suspect, until
the ammunition was exhausted or a mechanical
malfunction occurred.
Q And that's similar to your experience with
Page 190
1
2
3
4
5
6
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Do you have any comment on the claim that

the ATF bases its classifications on the
manufacturer that submits?
A I don't think that's what he's saying. I
think he says if we did that. He clearly says if.
But we do not alter what we do for manufacturers,
not to my knowledge. I don't
BY MR. MONROE:
Exhibit 7. I included four pages for completeness
of the e-mail thread, but I'm just looking at the
last one, which is, you know, the first one that
appears from Mr. Pinckney to Mr. Lintner.
"He is setting up a good case for a
retaliatio11 case, though. The more he testifies as
an" -A I'm sorry.
Q I'm reading the very first one.
A Okay.
Q "The more he testifies as an expert
against ATF and the more he gets hammered by FTB for
anything he submits, the better his case gets for a
civil suit at some point. Sort of how I look at it,
anyway. His approach will never work, though, right
Page 189 - Page 192 (48)
Page 192
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Defendant?
A Would they function in the same way if you
did that?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q IsaMACA Let me rephrase that.
Q Sure.
A This is - in those scenarios it's also
assuming it has a machine gun bolt in it. I should
state that.
Q Is a MAC upper an NFA firearm?
A No, sir.
Q Is it a GCA fireann?
A No, sir. It's not a firearm.
Q That was NFA and GCA. So if it's not a
firearm at all, I ~sume that means it's freely
transferable without a background check.
A Yes, sir.
Q Does it contain housing for the bolt?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does it contain the firing mechanism?
A It contains one part of the firing
mechanism, the bolt.
Q What part doesn't it contain?
1617
\lin-l
-"'(' I
ipl I<
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

Page 193
1
2
A The trigger mechanism. Well, I'm sorry.
recoil spring.
Q Well, the Defendant contains the bolt and
s no trigger too; is that correct?
6
A Yes.
7
Q Is a MAC upper threaded at the forward
e position to accept the barrel?
9
A No.
10
Q The methodology you used to test fire
11 Defendant with the -- the second one with the chain
12 and the turnbuckle and the plate, would you say
13 that's a practical way to use the Defendant on a
14 long-term basis?
15
A No, sir.
16
Q Why not?
17
A Well, those items might vibrate loose.
18 They might get in the way.
19
Q If they were to vibrate loose while you
20 were firing the Defendant, what would happen?
21
A The Defendant would -- the same event
22 would occur as when the zip tie was broken. The
23 recoil mechanism would be thrown out the rear.
24
Q And if you were standing behind it and the
25 vibrating loose happened at I'll say the wrong time
4
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Defendant. After you installed either version

of the rear pieces that you added and put in a belt
3 and everything, what do you actually have to do to
4 fire it?
s
A After you 6
Q After you've installed the plate and
7 whatever you used to hold it on the back and after
e you load the belt and install the belt on the
9 Defendant, what do you actually have to do to fire
10 it?
11
A Pull the charging handle and release it.
12
Q The charging handle, by that you mean this
13 right here?
u
A The knob on the right side.
15
Q So you pull it back like that?
16
A Yes.
17
Q And release it. And then if you've got
18 the device on the back holding the recoil spring,
19 and then the force of the recoil spring pushes the
20 charging handle back forward again?
21
A Yes, sir.
22
Q And then that's attached to the bolt
23 carrier, so then that initiates the firing sequence;
24 is that correct?
2s
A I think it's the same thing. You said it
l
It also contains the -- in part it contains the
Page 195
Page 194
Page 196
during the firing cycle, could you incur an injury?

A Yes, sir.
Q Perhaps a significant one?
A You could. It depends on what you're
wearing, how it hit you.
MR. MONROE: Why don't we take a break,
and I might be about ready to wrap it up.
(Brief recess)
BY MR. MONROE:
Q I've just got a couple of more cleanup
questions, which means unfortunately they're going
to be somewhat disjointed.
I think when we talked about your c.v. you
talked about some armorer's courses you had
attended.
A Yes.
Q What do those focus on?
A The complete disassembly and assembly of a
firearm of whatever particular model, make and model
that's presented in that class or by that company
and the repair and replacement of those parts.
Well, replacement of those parts to repair the gun,
I should say, not repair of individual parts.
Q And I think I might have glossed over just
one aspect of when you were doing the test-firing of
slightly off.
Q Okay. Go ahead and correct me.
3
A The charging handle is not connected
4 directly to the bolt carrier.
s
Q Right.
6
A So when you release the bolt carrier, the
7 spring is actually pushing against the bolt carrier.
s The bolt carrier throws the charging handle forward
9 into its closed position. It's what's called a
lO nonreciprocating. It will stay there until you pull
11 it back again. The bolt itself will continue to
12 reciprocate without the charging handle moving.
13
Q Okay. So to initiate that sequence, the
14 charging handle would be all the way forward. You
1s pull it to the rear and release it?
16
A Yes, sir.
11
Q Okay. And we had some little discussion
18 with Mr. Vasquez during his deposition about a
l9 classification panel, because there were some -- I
20 think maybe some earlier procedure manuals that
21 discussed one. And he said that that's no longer
22 used at FTB. Are you familiar with classification
23 panels?
24
A I'm familiar because there's a mention in
25 an ATF order.
\fin-l -L,l'ripto<
American Court Reportlni: Company, Inc.
1618
(49) Page 193 - Page 196
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16. 2009

Page 197
l
2
3
5
6
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q But they're not used any longer?
Page 199
1
A No.
Q Okay. And so one was not used for the
classification of Defendant?
A Well, yes and no. Everyone that would
have comprised that panel, as mentioned in the
order, was present in the briefings that were
presented and the discussions that were presented
about the device prior to submission of the letter.
So they were made well aware of it and did not
disagree with the findings at all.
Q And who would that be?
A It would be legal counsel, the Branch
Chief, myself, obviously, because I was presenting
the firearm, the Division Chief. I believe at one
point one of the Deputy Assistant Directors was made
aware ofit.
Q When you say made aware of it, does that
mean he was, or she -- I don't know -- was present
during the discussions or was just briefed on it at
some other point?
A Briefed on it, I believe.
Q So the - well, I think you testified the
only person who actually made the classification
decision was you; is that right?
2
3
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A At least two. For sure I'm going to say

two.
Q Okay. And are all the observations you
made about these comparisons contained in your
letter?
A Yes, sir.
MR. MONROE: Okay. I'm finished.
MR. VJSCOMI: All right. Thank you.
MR. MONROE: Thank you.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. VJSCOMJ:
Q We've got a few questions. Counsel here
is helping me with a little bit of technical
background.
Mr. Kingery, does the Defendant contain a
frame or a receiver?
A Yes.
Q Is it a machine gun?
A Yes.
Q Did Historic Arms remove or defeat the
blocking bar and widen the side rail?
A Yes.
Q Well, the receiver isn't threaded for a
barrel. Does it have attachment points for a front
trunnion?
Page 198
Page200
A Yes, sir.
2
3
4
Q If I could refer you to object 2, which I
A Yes, sir.
Q And you're saying these other people
3 agreed with you?
4
A Yes, sir.
s
Q All right. So if you made the decision by
yourself,
I'm inferring that means it wasn't a panel
6
7 that made the decision.
8
A Correct.
9
Q And then one final point. I think you
10 said you compared the Defendant to a PK type machine
11 gun that's in the National Firearms collection; is
12 that right?
13
A Yes.
14
Q You did not compare to it a PK type
15 semi-automatic firearm, because, at least at that
16 time, there was not one in the collection?
17
A Correct.
18
Q Are there multiple PK machine guns in the
19 collection?
20
A There are several PK types there, yes,
21 sir.
22
Q Did you compare it to more than one, the
23 Defendant to more than one?
24
A Yes, sir.
25
Q How many?
Page 197 - Page 200 (50)
believe this is object 2.

A Yes.
s
Q Is that based on a PK?
6
A Yes, PK tech firing.
7
Q And the Defendant, is that based on a PK?
8
A Yes.
9
Q Do the parts in Defendant and a PK totally
10 interchange?
11
A No.
12
Q Does this render the Defendant not a
13 machine gun?
14
A No. It's still a machine gun.
15
Q If a machine gun conversion device, for
16 example, a drop-in auto sear, is put into a Title I
17 fireann, is the Title I fireann a machine gun?
A No. Well, it - no. No.
18
19
Q You were shown by Mr. Monroe some e-mails.
20 I believe it's Claimant's Exhibits -- is this a11 7?
21
A No. I think it's two different ones.
22
Q 6 and 7, some e-mails that were exchanged
23 between Daniel Pinckney and Ernest Lintner?
24
A Yes.
25
Q Now, it was your testimony that you didn't
1619
\lin -l - 'ic..n111 i.
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Page 201
know one of the gentlemen; correct?

A Correct.
3
Q Which one?
4
A Daniel Pinckney.
5
Q But you are familiar with Mr. Lintner?
6
A Yes.
7
Q Now, you do know all the personnel who
a work in FTB; correct?
9
A Yes, sir.
10
Q Do either of these gentlemen work in FTB?
11
A No, sir.
12
Q Does any other department aside from FTB
13 in the ATF classify firearms?
14
A No, sir.
15
Q To your knowledge, was Mr. Pinckney
16 trained by FTB to classify firearms?
11
A Not in classification of firearms, no,
18 sir.
19
Q And the same question regarding
20 Mr. Lintner. Was he trained by FTB in the
21 classification of firearms?
22
A No, sir.
23
MR. VISCOMI: I have nothing further.
24
25
(Deposition concluded at 4:35
1
Page203
1
2
G B 0 R G I As
COUNTY OP DBXALJl1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C 8 R T I P I C AT 8
harahy certify that the foregoing trancript
waa takan down tated in the caption and the

procaading were reduced to typewriting under my
direction and control .
I rurthar cartiry that the trancript i a true
and correct record or tha avidanca given at tha aaid
proceeding.
11
I further certify that I am neither a relative
12 or employee or attorney or eounal to any of the
13
partia nor financially or otharwiaa intarated in
14
thh -ttar.
15 Thia, tba 28th day of Septa.bar, 2009,

16
17
18
19
20
21
NANCY H. OROBBR, B-873
22
23
24
25
Page202
p.a . )
2
3
Page204
2
3
-oooDI S C L 0 8 0 R B
S R R A T A
S H S B T
IN RB1 U.S.A. v. Ona Riatoric Arma Nodal 54RCC8

CIVIL ACTION PILB N01
1109-CV-0192-GST
STATB OP GBORGIA
4 DIPOSITION TAICBN ON1 Thi 16th day or Saptallbar,
COONTY OP DBKALB
DBPOSITION OP JIAX K. XINGBRY
Puruant to Article 8 . B. of the Rule and

Regulation of th Board of Court Reporting of the
Judicial Council of Georgia, I aaka tha following
dicloura1
7
8
Raving read tha tranacript of my dapoaition,

I wih to aaka tha following change (Plea atate
ron.)
I aa a Oaorgia Cartifiad Court Reporter. I aa

hara a rapraantativa of l\aarican Court Reporting
Co., Inc .
Paga I Lina I
10
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I aa not diqualifiad for a ralationhip of

intarat under proviion of o.c.G.A 9-ll-28(c).
Aaarican Court Raporting Co., Inc., wa contactad
by tha office of John R. Nonroe to provide court
reporting rvic for thi dapoition.
American Court Raporting Co . , Inc . , will not ba
taking thi dapoition under any contract that i
prohibitd by o.c.o.A 15-14-37 (a) and (bJ.
American Court Reporting co . , Inc., ha no
axcluiva contract to provide reporting rvicaa
with any party to tha ca any counaal in tba caaa,
or any raportar or reporting agency froa bOlll a ratarral
aight have bean made to cover thia dapoition.
Aaaric&z1 Court Reporting co, Inc., will charge
it uual and cutomary rat to all parti
in the ca and a financial dicount will not ha
given to any party to thia litigation .
Thia, the 16th day of Sapt..t>ar, 2009.
24
25
\lin-l -~wriptCiJJ
NAiiCY
K.
OROBBR, CCR
8-17)
Change I Raaaon
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
RXX N. klNCIRY
20
21
22
Sworn to and auhcrihad bafora 111a,
23
, Notary Public .
24
25
Thia _ _day of - - - - - -' 2009.

Ny Commiion Sxpir
1620
2009.
I have raad the trancript of my dapoition

and find that no cbanga are nacary.
(51) Page 201 - Page 204
RIF
1621
RIF

0
0352 (t)
17:5
OS (S)
45:16;46:4;52:5,
19;53:12
06 (3)
14:25;46:1,4
1
1 (40)
82:3,6; 140:25;
141 : 14,23;146:4;
149:15;150: 10,21 ;
I 51:8;152:10,25;
153:11,15,20;
I 54: 11; I 57:2,4,5,8;
I 58:8, 15,18,25;
159:1 , 10,14,22;
160:8,25;161 :9,20,
23 ; 162:2; 163:4,9, 17,
19; 165:25;166: 16
1:06 (I)
81:20
10 (1)
84:15
11 (2)
15:18,21
11:06 (1)
51 :17
11:16(1)
51 :18
llth(l)
52:5
12:00 (1)
81 : 19
16 (2)
62: 15;93:9
17 (I)
173:9
18 (2)
173:5,8
1986 (2)
169:5,13
19th (I)
25:2
2
2 (45)
88:25;89:3;
108:12;114:8;123:7,
8; 149:20; 150:9,22,
22; 15I:2;152: I ,6, 15;
153:7, 16;154:4 ,7;
157:3,20; 159:18,21;
160:9,15,25; 161: 10,
20,23;162:3;163:4,7,
9, 17' 19,24; 165:2,3;
166:16,24;167: 14,
\lin-l "l'riptJi
16,20; 168: I ;200:2,3

2005 (3)
45:14,14,20
2006 (1)
45:13
2008 (3)
87:17;89:17;90:2
2009 (2)
186:4,22
21st (S)
53:12;89:17,19;
90:5;92:i5
23rd (1)
87:17
26 (1)
62:14
28th (I)
186:22
2-liter (I)
59:21
3
3 (12)
21 :21;82:14;
161 :6,17;163: 11,14,
15;167:9, 12; 170:20,
22;171:7
3:03 (1)
156:23
3:15 (1)
156:24
30 (2)
57:6,7
30,000 (1)
43:20
380 (1)
132:24
4
4 (9)
83:8; 168:3, 15,19;
169:19;170:8,11 ,12,
14
4:35 (1)
201:25
40 (2)
14:25;59:4
4006 (1)
15:1
42 (1)
23:6
45 (2)
132:25;133:18
s
s (10)
170:16,18; 171 :9;
173:13; 179:23;
185: 16, 16, 18,21,21
54R (5)
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
133:2,5;139:6;
140:9,20
S4RCCSS (t)
83:23
S-8 (1)
185:13
6
6 (6)
82:15;89:23;
108:13;188:17, 19;
200:22
6465 (1)
16: 13
7
7 (S)
114:8;190:8,11;
200:20,22
7.62 (5)
133:2,5; 139:6;
140:9,20
700 (1)
15:4
762 (t)
117: 11
8
86 (1)
24:22
8th (3)
90:2,5;92: l 5
9
9 (3)
132:25;140:16,19
90-degree (1)
121 :23
9-millimeter (3)
133:17,19; 140:21
A
abbreviation (1)
35 :23
ability (I)
109:20
able (12)
45:7;57:5;80:21 ;
85: 16; I 04: 16; I08:3;
109:17;110:1;
128: 16; 129:24;
133: I 7;176:3
above (3)
83 :11 ,21 ,25
Absent (1)
171:6
academy (S)
26:14,15,21 ;27:14;
28:14
accept (7)
163:10;167:5;
176: I 5, 18,21;
177:23;193 :8
accessory (I)
151:19
accident (I)
28:13
accompanying (1)
92:23
accomplish (I)
95:21
accomplished (1)
165:15
according (1)
6:16
accounting (1)
30:6
accuracy (1)
188:12
accurate (9)
11:10; 16:18;
21 : 13;35 : I 9;36:22;
45:2;53:9;83:24;
132:6
accurately (8)
167: I 5;170:14,21;
185:20; 189:4,6,24;
191 :3
achieve (I)
137:5
achieving (I)
136:25
acronym (I)
69:9
across (3)
43:13;119:8;120:8
Act (6)
49:25;50:2;
I 17:20;165 :9,20;
187:14
acted (1)
16:20
acting (3)
117: 18;134:4;
139:22
action (1)
94:6
active (S)
17: 19,2 1;24:17, 18,
23
activity (1)
44:15
actual (5)
42:2;84:11 ,19;
131:15;138:22
actually (33)
9:20; 10:23;20:5;
21 :3;23:19;24:23;
40: 18,24;41 :12,16;
44:4;45:5;48:3;
70: l 6;80:20;8 l :2;
1622
88:18;96:7;101 :23;
l 10:7;114:4,6;135:1;
137:19;144:22;
146:7; 173:5; 179:16,
I 7; 195:3,9;196:7;
197:24
Adam (t)
50:10
add (3)
105:25;159:7;
168:15
added (8)
110:1;111 :5;
127:23; 145:7; 164:8,
20;189:7;195 :2
adding (1)
82:19
addition (3)
28:7;112:25;
174:16
additional (3)
112:24;113:6;
122:13
additionally (1)
28:12
additions (I)
114:5
address (1)
61:23
adjective (1)
157:21
adjustable (1)
l 18:2
adjustment (3)
118:3,4,5
Administration (1)
66:19
administrative (2)
7:24;13:24
advanced (3)
27:9;28: 17, 18
affect (1)
70:12
affirm(l)
129:21
aft (2)
101:11;113:15
after-market (2)
177:16;191:21
afterward (1)
107:1
again (23)
31 :17;44:22;
51 :12;58:14;62:2;
73 :4;83:2;86: 13;
89:25;91: 15; 108:12;
114:8;122:4; 131 :10,
17;132:4, 19; 135: 17;
137:25; 148:20;
153: 18; 195:20;
196:11
against (3)
85:10;190:22;
(I) 0352 - against
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
196:7
age (1)
173:1
agencies (4)
30:18;31:14;
32:11,12
agency (5)
11:20;12:12;
64: I 8;69:4; 189:22
agent (4)
31:24;44:3;65:13;
73:13
agents (6)
30: 16;65: 13;73:4,
22,23,23
ago (3)
40: 18; 105: 16;
119:25
agree (2)
156: 14;189:19
agreed (2}
184:2;198:3
ahead (5)
32:22,23;41:14;
93:6;196:2
Air (3)
22:6;66: 19;67:8
airport (2)
66:14;67:7
AK(4)
37:20,24;38: 16;
69:17
AK's (2)
37:22;62:6
al (I)
77:8
Alcohol (1)
12:14
alert {I)
17:24
Alex (1)
77:5
allegations (1)
5:12
allow (4)
70:1; 128:4; 135:2;
147:23
allowed (3}
27:8;40:2;108:4
allowing (l}
112: 10
almost (1)
30:9
alone (3)
55:16;60:21;
156:18
along (6)
26:3,20;29:9;
92:10;94:7; 189:6
alter (3)
113:21 ;189:19;
190:6
alternative (1)
age auto (2)

149:4
although (2)
20: 14;58:25
aluminum (1)
107:9
always (4)
41 :19;49:4;61: 19;
63:24
American (1)
23:9
ammunition (10)
50:23;70: 1;
101:13;102:13,15;
112:12;114:1;117:5;
191 :19,23
amount (7)
13:4;43:7;68: 15;
86:21;121:10;
166: 18;173:1
analysis (3)
28:20;89:5; 186: 12
Analyst (I)
186:12
analyze (I)
93:24
ancillary (1)
50:15
and/or (1)
82:19
angle (4)
119:19;171:2,5;
191:2
answered (I)
6:16
anti (1)
18:12
anti-armor (I)
18:13
anti-tank (4)
17:6,11,14;23:22
AOW(l)
66:21
apologize (1)
86:4
apparatus (1)
103:15
apparent (1)
167:20
Apparently (2)
97:2; 186:23
appear (5)
163:24;167:22;
170:21;171 :4,6
appearances (3)
74:22;75: 18,23
appeared (4)
97:18;100:3;
101:19;130:13
appears (11)
103: 13, 17; l 05:7;
151:5;152:22;
161 :22;171 :14;
172:9;186:7,l 1;
190:14
application (1)
185:5
applied (8)
26:4;72:21;
118:19;120:3,4,7,9,
16
apply (3)
37:12;119:9;
121:15
applying (3)
72: 19,23 ,25
approach (2)
190:25;191 :2
appropriate (1)
94:6
approved (3)
98:19;125:12;
183:25
April (5)
87:17;89:17,19;
90:5;92:15
AR(7)
15:1;37:23;39:25;
40:5;62:2,9, 17
AR-15 (1)
61:12
Arabia (1)
20:24
area (4)
8:3,8;164:8,16
areas (S)
8:9;11 : 19;12:20;
30:25;83:6
armed (2)
11:4;21:8
armored (2)
18:12,12
armorer (6)
50:25;54:25;
55:24;56:11 ,14,17
armorer's (4)
55:9, 12,25;194: 14
Arms (2)
84:3;199:20
Army (11)
15:22;22:6;24:10,
l 2, l 5, l 5,24;25:22;
28:3;41 :6;49:6
around (9)
25:20;4 l :7;73:9;
91:13;115:8;117:10;
121: l ,22; 146: 12
arrest (1)
4:17
arrested (4)
78:10;106:20;
125:21;126:2
AR's (6)
40:4;58:4,5;59:23,
24;62:6
arsenal (I)
17:14
arsons (1)
12:3
artillery (1)
18:21
ashamed (1)
187:3
aside (7)
I 5:8;33:22;
121:16;134:17;
150:7;171 :1;201:12
aspect (1)
194:25
aspects (3)
16: 17;90: 17; 100:1
ass (1)
188:23
assault (I)
17:1 l
assaults (I)
12:4
assemble (2)
48:17;49:14
assembled (5)
38:7,l 1;142:23;
143:14;160:23
assembling (1)
39:20
assembly (3)
37:25;39:4; 194: 18
assign (1)
21:22
assigned (5)
12: I; 18:5;20: 16;
25: 10;46: 10
assignment (3)
14:16;22:15;92: 17
assignments (4)
7:25;14:7,14;
49:21
assist (1)
143:3
assistance (3)
31: 13;73:4,25
assistant (9)
9:21 ;10:2,3,10,18;
13:15,17;94:16;
197:16
assisting (I)
64:22
associate (1)
65:22
associated (1)
110:16
Assoclate's (3)
26:4,21,23
assume (10)
44:22;60:8;73:8;
75: I ;89:24;90:4;
93: 12; 129:4;146:14;
192:17
assuming (10)
45: 19;79:3;
129:20; 140:22;
1623
142:23;166:8,20;
169:5; 181: 12; 192: 10
ATF (38)
7:5,10;9:16;10:24;
28:6;30: I 0,25;32: 1O;
33:7;40:7, l 0;42:22;
43:9;44:24;45:5, 17,
19;5l:22;60:13;
65: 13,25;71 :1,3,10;
86: 12;106:9, 12;
107:2;125:22;126: 1;
I 82:4;185:9,23;
190:2,22;191: I;
196:25;201: 13
ATF/FTB (1)
186:25
ATF-related (1)
75:20
attach (2)
139:17; 191: 11
attached (17}
101:23;102: 18,21;
103:4;113:23;116:5;
119: 17; 120: 18,20;
121 :2;138:22;
146:25;147:2,3;
164:22,24;195:22
attaching (1)
112:23
attachment (I)
199:24
attained (2)
15:19,25
attempt (4)
95: 17; 109:4,5, l 0
attempted (I)
100:21
attended (3)
50:16;76:17;
194:15
attention (4)
123:20,25;125: 18;
183:23
attorney (1)
7:1
Attorney's (I)
75:6
audience (3}
64: 16, l 7;66:23
August (2)
52:5,18
authority (2)
12:12,13
authorization (1)
71:9
authorized (1)
70:9
auto (31)
40:5,9;114:3;
141 :10;173:9,20;
l 74:25;175:3,9,18,
23;176:2, 15,16,18,
19;177:4;178:6,7,11,
\lin-l
-~cripfi\I
RIF

12; 179:4,8, I5,24;
180:9,9,24;18I:1,18;
200:16
automatic (5)
72:5,8;82:20;
107:25;109:18
automatically (5)
97:20; 100:25;
157: 11; 163:21;
182:23
auto-sear (1)
172:4
available (14)
36:8,23;38:1;
47: 16;73:17;90:13;
98: 10, 12;142:21,24;
147:15;148:14;
157: 16; 166:21
average (1)
56:22
aviation (2)
16:15;27:18
avoid (1)
30:1
awaiting (1)
88:11
aware (10)
41 :3;66:3;104:18;
I 29:6; 182:2I;184:8;
185:9; 197: I 0,17,18
away (3)
44: 17; 112: 10;
137:14
awfully (1)
116:10
B
back (41)
7:8;13:6;14:15;
15: 16,20;23:5;27:8,
l 2;42:20;47: 12;
60: I;62:2;69:4;
70: 14;77:3;96:21;
100:14;102:14;
107:14;111:15;
115:7;118:13;119:6;
121:I;127: 16;
137:10, 17; 139: I;
140:2; 143: 17;
157:20;165 :25;
178:20; 179:9; 187: 1;
188:21;195 :7, I 5, 18,
20;196:11
background (2)
192:18;199:14
bankrupt (1)
191 :I
BAR(46)
52:5,7;127:22;
141 :11;144:2,15,20;
145:2,6; 148:6,25;
149:17;150: 17,17;
151: 15, l 6; 152: 12,

16;153:3,25; 154:3,
17, 18,24;155:9, 13;
156:7,8,20;157:4, l 3,
18,19;158:3; 163: 1,7;
165:13, 18,21; 168:9,
10, 16,20,21; 169:20;
199:21
Barack (1)
58:3
barracks (2)
10: 1; 19:21
barrel (10)
62:15;93 :9;100:3;
111 :15;141:21;
142:4; 159:5; 167:5;
193:8;199:24
base (2)
20:15;101 :2
based (11)
20: 13;39:7;60: 19,
21;84:21;93:12,21;
171 :16;189:20;
200:5,7
bases (1)
190:2
basic (S)
21 :24;22:9;27:6;
28:15;50:16
Basically (23)
12:10,11;14:22;
16:14; 17:15;18:22;
19:12;32: 13;33:11 ;
46: 10;54:2;58:20;
61 : 17;65:11,22;71 :7;
72:11;73:16;91 :14;
102:2; I 07:8; 113: 19;
160:6
basis (1)
193:14
battalion (4)
17: 16, l 7; 18:5,15
battalions (I)
17:23
bears (I)
85:23
became (5)
41:15;58:4;78:1 I;
104:9,12
become (2)
153:16;171 :23
began (2)
45:5,8
begin (2)
45:2;110:5
beginning (2)
76:12;97:4
begins (I)
84:16
behalf (I)
30:17
behind (2)
164:9;193:24
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
beller(3)
130: 18;13 l :25;
132:10
belt (13)
101 : 13,16;102: 13;
108:22; 110:9,9,22;
l 11:25;112:3,15;
195:2,8,8
bent (1)
107:12
Berkeley (4)
10:3;13:18,22;
75:24
besides (5)
34:17;88:10;
106:12;1l1:4;126:2
best (4)
61 : 17;63: 16,25;
156:18
bet (1)
188:3
better (7)
77:4;113 :7;124:2;
146:17;177:15;
189: I; 190:23
beyond (1)
122:11
bit (18)
28:7;39:5;4 l :7;
42:9;44:25;52:18;
57:11 ;60:7;61 :6;
70:2;84: 10;85 :20;
110:15;145:18;
147:24;157:17;
158:6;199:13
black (1)
185:19
blame (I)
10:12
blank (I)
58:7
blew (2)
108:18;112:18
block (1)
54:3
blocking (42)
141:11;144:2,14,
20; 145:2,6;148:6,25;
149: 16; 150: 17 ,17;
151:15,1 6;152:1 2,
15; 153:2,24; 154:3,
17,18,24;155:4,9, 13;
156:20;157:4, 13,18,
l 9;158:3; 163: 1,7;
165: 13, 18,21 ;168:8,
I 0, 16,20,21 ;169:20;
199:21
blowback (3)
135:15;136:1;
137:11
bolt (90)
83:22;84:4;99:25;
100:8;101 :7,8,9,11,
15,20,20,23,24,24,
25;102: 1,1,3,5,5, 19,
21;108:1;117:16;
127:22;128:2;135 :3,
3,4;136:23; 141 :13,
15;142:17,18;
144:14,21,22,23;
145: 14,21 ;146:1;
148:5;149:5,9,12;
150: 17,17; 151: 15,
15,25;153:2,9;
154: I 7, 18, 18, 19,19,
21,24;155:4,9;
156:20; 157:3; 159:6;
160:4,13;161 :7,17;
162:1,5;163:10,19;
165: 13; 166:24,25;
168:8, IO; 170:20;
171 :3,7;192:10,20,
24;193:4;195:22;
196:4,6,7,8,11
boot (I)
24:23
bore (I)
99:25
both (35)
30: 16;3 l :7;33:2,3;
39:16;50:5,6;62:5;
65:7,10;68:9;69:1,9,
13;72: 13, J7;95:3,24;
97:25;99:17;111:15;
136:5,7' 18; 148:25;
149:16;153:6;
154: 10;161 :20,22;
162:12;163:4,l 1;
177:4;180:8
bottle (1)
59:21
bottom (8)
74:6;127:23;
155:7;160:16;
164:23,25; 165: 16;
188:9
brain (1)
132:5
Branch (5)
71:2;186:13,13;
187:14;197:13
breaches (I)
19:4
break (10)
6:18;35:6;51 : 16,
20;116:11,15,23;
156:22; 162:20; 194:6
Bren (1)
23:20
Bridgeport (2)
19:8,13
brlef (2)
13:7;194:8
briefed (2)
197:20,22
briefings (1)
1624
197:7
bring (3)
70: 1;90:12;91: 12
Britain (1)
23:8
Britain's (1)
23:11
broke (4)
100:20;105:9;
107:16;108:4
broken (3)
105:6;118:25;
193:22
brought (6)
86:3,6;92:13,18;
183:23; 188:24
budget (I)
55:17
buffer (2)
83: 18; 142: 18
building (6)
8:5,7;12: l 5;73:23,
24;186:17
bulk (1)
120:9
bullet (1)
118: 16
Bullpup (1)
23:19
bunch (2)
51:9,10
bureau (I)
74:23
burglary (1)
10:25
burping {I)
86:5
business (5)
41:22;42:1,2,3,4
buU (1)
142:13
buy (3)
41:5,7;180:21
c
C&R (4)
41:3,18,18,20
calculated (I)
183:22
caliber (20)
93:11;132:22,25;
133:1,4,8,10,11,13,
18,23;134: 1; 139:7,8,
11,14,18,19,20;
140:12
calibrations (1)
35:16
California (2)
19:9,13
call (14)
5:9;18:14;33: 16,
J9;39:3;42: 14;65: 12,
(3) automatic: - call
RIF
...
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
13;69:1;112:6;
140:25;149:20;
161:6;168:2
called (6)
70: 17;71: i 6;75:2;
78:8, 19; 196:9
calling (1)
104:13
calls (3)
I 29: 14; 130: 10;
180:2
came (7)
28 :6;32:20;33: 1,2;
61 :2;121: I ;126:25
Camp(2)
20:13;24:23
can (64)
5:21; 10:20;12:13;
16:11;27:13;29:13;
30:2;33:25;42: 15;
47:3;5 l :5;53:18;
57:4;59:21;61:11;
62:9,16;63:16,25;
64:5;65 :18;69:9;
72: 14;77:3;79:19;
80:22;83:6,7;89:3;
97:9;104: 14;105:2;
107:4;110:7;113:1,
12;114:24;119:14;
120:6;125:11;129:7;
138:25;140:22;
141: I ;143:7;146:8,
12,19;149:21;
151:11;161 :11;
162:20;167:23;
168: 1,3; 170: 13;
171: 10;172:20;
177:3,15,16;181: 19;
187:21;188:8
capable (4)
83:13;97:19;
100:4;105:23
caption (I)
80:17
capture (l)
102:12
captured (I)
21 :1
carbines (1)
15:2
care (I)
36:16
career (I}
11 :4
Carolina (1)
20:14
carrier (33)
83:22;84:5;100:8;
I 01 : 15,24,25; 102: I,
21;127:23;128:2;
142: l 8;144:22,23 ;
145: 14,21;149:6,9,
12; 154:22; 160:4,13;
called - collision (4)

161:7,17;162:5;
163: 10,20; I 70:20;
171:7;195:23; 196:4,
6,7,8
cartridge (4)
100:5;101 :15;
103:14;117:9
cartridges (2)
113:18;137:21
case (40)
4:16,22;7:2;11:3;
32: 18;57:5;65:14;
73: I 7;76:5,7;77:5,
12,21;78:16;79: 16,
18,21,23,23 ;80:3,6,
l 0,15,17,22;81 : 1,14,
16;91 :1;92:21;94:1 I,
l 1;102:4;132:14;
162: 12; 182:22;
189:21; 190: 15, 16,23
cases (21)
4:14;5:2,14;29:25;
32: 16, 17;39: 15, 16;
58:10,11;68:7;75 :8;
76: 14, I6;78:4,9,20,
22;79:3,11;90:19
casting (I)
113:8
category (4)
66:9,21 ;73:5,7
caught (1)
188:1
cause (2)
104:20;116:15
caused (I)
116:6
causes (I)
36:25
caution (I)
109:15
Center (3)
19:14;31:19,25
centers (1)
32:3
certain (7)
8:22; 16:23;92:4,5;
156:9; 173: 17,24
certainly (5)
13:14;63:12;
143:20;148:3,19
certainty (1)
172:21
certificate ( 13)
27:19,19,21,21;
28: 17, 18,19,20;29:5,
11,20;30:4;38:24
certificates (5)
26:20;28: 10,25;
29:2,4
certification (I)
56:14
certified (4)
26:19;28:15;
29: 10;56: 17
certify (2)
36:7;68:25
chain (31)
107:17;113:9,13,
14;114:5,10;115:1,3,
7,8,14,14,18;116:4;
119:9,13,16,17,19;
120:1 l,18;121:1 I,
14, 17,25;122: 15;
137:18;189:2,l I;
191: 11; 193: 11
chamber (5)
99:25;101: 17;
117:8,15;118:13
chambered (1)
139:21
chance (2)
67:17;146:17
change (8)
133:9; 135:20;
139:8;145:23;184:3,
6,22;185:6
changed (6)
18:2;41:9;61 :1;
i33:5;145:17;184:6
changes (1)
145:21
characteristics (2)
50:20;70:3
charge (4)
9:25; 10:2; 187:16;
188:6
charged (2)
11 :4;188:2
charges (1)
5:10
charging (13}
102:14;110:11,18;
111:20;113:16;
142:16;195:11,12,
20;196:3,8,12,14
cheaper (I)
55:18
check (2)
109:12;192:18
Chief(4)
94: 16,19;197: 14,
15
chip (1)
172:4
chisel (I)
148:8
choose (4)
19:23;144:16;
146:13;157:9
chronologic (1)
16: 11
circle (2)
121:12,13
circuit (2)
19:12;75:18
circular (I)
138:14
circumstances (2)
57:19;175:13
circumvent (1)
132:19
cities (1)
65:1
city (1)
64:24
civil (3)
4:21;5:13;190:24
civilian (5)
68:24;70:13;
91 :16,23;169:10
civilians (3)
90:19;91:24;
169:14
claim (2)
189: 10;190:1
Claimant (3)
7:1 ;89:3;99:7
Claimant's (15)
81 :24;82:1,3,5,6,
l 1;88:25;130:23;
167:9;170:8,16;
i85:13;188:17;
i 90:8;200:20
clarification (4)
6:13;155:11;
173:4; 179: 18
clarify (12)
84:9;102: 17;
107:19;109:25;
122:17;130:20;
131:8;150:12,21;
165:1;172:6,10
clarity's (1)
162:20
clasp (I}
101:15
class (IS)
31:24,24;38:23;
50:17;55:14,21;
64:16,21,23;65:2,l 1,
21;69:25;70:19;
194:20
classes (28}
22:2;31: 16;33:23,
25;50:5;52: 14;
55: 16;64:20;66: 18,
20,23;67: 15, 16, 18,
22;68:6,8, 12, 18,22,
23;69:5,6,13,14,24;
70:6,12
classification (54)
31:8;42:I0,15,21;
43:9,14;44:25;46:5;
48: l 8;56:23;57: 14,
20;58:21 ;60:5,19,20,
23;6l :10, 13,21;
62:19,21,23;63:21;
79:24;8 l :3;85:24;
97: l O; I 06:22; 107: 1;
1625
122:7,10;124:22;
125:1,6,12,14;
132: 11; 170: 1;
174:11,17;182:5,6,
16;183: i; i84: 10;
185:10;186:24;
196: 19,22; 197:4,24;
201: 17,21
classifications (7)
37:9;45:5,9;57:6;
61 :3;65:9;190:2
classified (15)
42:20,25;46:2 I;
48:25;81:11;130:1,
15;132:9,12;155:5;
169:25;170:2;
182:15;183:20;184:9
classify (9)
31 :10;44:4;58:6;
80:1;93:24;95:17;
134: l 7;201 :13,16
classifying (4)
43 :13;44:18;
169:24;183:17
clean (1)
34:8
cleaned (I)
34:9
cleaning (3)
22:3;34:7;35:5
cleans (1)
35:6
cleanup (1)
194:10
clear (9)
11:11;29:15;31:3;
36: 15;55:23;13 I: I;
144:6;155:22;179:13
clearly (2)
170:24; 190:5
close (3)
46:7,8;114:20
closed (2)
102:9; 196:9
coach (3)
16:20;22: 17, 17
coaches (1)
16:24
code (1)
12:15
cold (5)
19:9,11;20:1I;
23:11,12
collecting (I}
41 :l
collection (14)
15:9;47: 12;54:8;
97: 15, I6;98:3, 13, 16;
134: 16;176:8; 181 :2;
198:11,16,19
college (3)
26: 17;27: 14;29:9
collision (2)
\'Ii 11-U-~cri ptil<
RIF

28 :20;29:25
color-coded (1)
90:20
combat (2)
21 :8;68:25
combination (6)
65:3;75: 15; 140:7,
11; 179:24; 180:9
combined (1)
139:13
comfortable (1)
48:15
coming (2)
68:1;119:6
commander (14)
7:15,19;9:11,13,
19,21,25;10:2, I 0,12,
18;13:7,16,18
Commando (2)
23:7,8
comment (6)
57:13;188:6,11;
189: 13; 190: 1;191:5
commerce (1)
32:20
commercially (4)
36:8;57:17;
142:21,24
Commission (1)
12:14
committing (1)
67:3
common (7)
13 :3;23:16;58: 18;
66:4;72:4,4;110:24
commonly (2)
58: 15; 172:3
communications (3)
25:1,6,11
company(3)
98:20;99:6; 194:20
compare (S)
98:8,17;147:9;
198:14,22
compared (7)
12:7;97: 14;98:2,
23;99:12;137:4;
198:10
comparison (2)
99:15,19
comparisons (1)
199:4
competitors (I)
189:23
complete (12)
33:5;83:4;112:17;
139:14;140:16;
141:24;142:12;
158:9, l 5, 18; 166: 15;
194:18
completed (2)
29:6;48:15
completely (4)
'lin-l-~~riptO
40: I; 112:7; 182:2;

186:16
completeness (1)
190:11
complicated (2)
107:19;143:5
components (6)
38:10;40:3;110:3;
138:8,11,13
compose (I)
96:6
compound (2)
162:8,19
comprehensive (S)
53:6;55:3;64:13;
74:3;78:23
compress (1)
143:6
compresses (I)
108:2
compressing (3)
143:2,9;148:12
comprised (1)
197:6
compromising (1)
160:17
computer9".ontrolled (1)
36:2
conceal (I)
66:22
Concealed (2)
66:10,21
concern (4)
110:15;112:4,7;
160:17
concerned (3)
109: 19,22,23
concerns (I)
113:5
conclude (I)
125:3
concluded (1)
201 :25
conclusion (3)
153: 1O;154: 12, 15
conclusions (I)
96:2
condition (12)
87:3;103:11,18,24;
105:13,21;106:7;
146:8;155:1;168:25;
169:21 ;171 :13
conduct (4)
11: 17, 18;22:2;
97:21
conducted (4)
I
7:22;21 :8;22:7;
23:24
conducting (I)
11:20
confer (1)
162:15
confident (3)
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
62:25;63:20;
118:24
configuration (4)
111:4;114:16;
127:15;142:14
configurations (2)
62:5;178:14
confirmed (1)
99:10
confirming (I)
93:3
confused (I)
9:23
confusing (1)
65:4
confusion (I)
131:10
conjecture (1)
104:11
conjunction (1)
36:14
connected (3)
119:1,23;196:3
consecutive (1)
26:16
consent (I)
74:13
consider (2)
29:16;42:11
considering (1)
112:24
considers (I)
170:5
consist (2)
17:10;35:12
consisted (3)
47:5;51 :7;53:19
construction (I)
97:13
contact (7)
65:25;69:19;87:8;
113:16;115:8;
120:11;186:18
contacted (2)
87:2;88:1
contacting (1)
88:24
contain (10)
105:18;108:3;
127:20; 138:7, l O;
140:3; 192:20,22,25;
199:15
contained (4)
83:18;117:17;
119:8; 199:4
container (6)
86:20,2I;87:1;
88:2,12;140:5
containing (1)
167:12
contains (S)
138:7;192:23;
193:2,2,4
continue (1)
196:))
continues (2)
76:2;191:1
control (7)
40:3;49:24;
109:17,20;110:2;
138:8,11
controllability (1)
109:16
conversion (8)
66:4;72:12;93:11;
180: 15, 16; 189:3, I 2;
200:15
conversions (3)
71: 17,25; 146:22
convert (6)
148:24,25; 149:2,
14; 176:4; 178: 1
converted (S)
80:25;81 :1,7;
155:14;174: 15
converting (3)
72:2,5,8
copy (3)
58: 1;82:1;89:4
corner (I)
113:2
corners (1)
121 :23
Corps (24)
14: 12, 12;15:21;
16:21; 17: 18; 18: 18;
19:5, I 0;20: 10;23:2;
24:20;25:4;27: 17;
36: 11;40:19,20;41 :6;
49:7;68:21 ;69:2,8,
25;70:6,9
Corps' (1)
68:24
corrected (1)
189:8
correctly (I)
176:14
correlate (1)
51 :23
correspondences (I)
90:20
counsel (7)
87:12;96:1;
162:10;185:4;
186:21; 197: 13;
199: 12
counsels (I)
162:17
counterintuitive (1)
154: 13
counties (S)
8: 10,14, 15,16,25
countries (1)
47:18
country (1)
73:10
1626
county (S)
8:13,18;12:8;
13:20;114:21
couple (9)
50:25;57: 11 ;65: I;
97:3;99:20; 100:21;
130:20;151: 10;
194:10
coupled (1)
110:1
course (21)
29:6;47:10;55:9,
24,25;68:25;69:3,8,
20;71 :5,24;72:10,11;
94:6;96:7;97:17,23;
127:21;142:5;
164:23; 189: 19
courses (8)
27: 15;54:25;
55: 12;56: 11 ;64:3,9;
69:23;194:14
court (18)
5:20;29:23;73: 17;
74:21,23;75: 14,19,
19,19;76: 13,16, 19,
22;77:14,23 ;78:2;
79:3;80:16
courts (1)
5:4
cover (6)
23:1;112:2;142:7,
8;164:10,10
covered (2)
8:10;113:3
Covering (1)
10:7
covers (S)
8:9;23 :3;34:11;
49: 12;50:18
Coweta (2)
103:24;114:21
create (I)
166:15
created (4)
145:11;156:6;
165:23;166:2
creation (1)
165:11
crew-served (I)
18:20
crime (4)
11:25;12:5;67:4;
186:12
crimes (3)
11:10;12:3;13:4
criminal (7)
5:10;11:4,18,20;
30: 16;57:4;90: 19
crush (1)
28:19
cube (3)
86:3,6;91 :4
curio (I)
(S) color~coded - curio
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
41:20
curiosity (2)
124:2,23
current (3)
45: 17;56:20;
174:10
currently (1)
54:10
Curtis (7)
46: 14;47:5;49:1;
50:6;51: 14;52:5,8
curve (1)
45:1
custody (1)
100:15
cut (6)
38:9,9;84:6; 107:9;
166:3,10
cuts (2)
85 :6,6
cutting (1)
146:10
CV (11)
I 0:16;13:8;14: 17;
18:24;20:2;2 l :7;
45:15;5 l :23;64:2;
72:16;194:13
cycle (4)
101:11;112:18;
137:9;194:1
cycled (1)
107:25
cycles (1)
67:25
cylinder (2)
142:6; 159:5
D
daily (2)
58:4;186:18
damage (13)
86:21 ;87: I ;88: 16,
24; 103:14, 17,20;
104:4,21 ;105:11 ;
116:6;147:22;189:22
damaged (11)
86:20;87:5;88: l,
12; I 03:21,23; I 04:7,
9,12,17,18
Daniel (4)
186:9,11;200:23;
201 :4
date (18)
35: 16;5 I :24;
52: 10, 11, i 5;53:3;
74:9,19;86:7,13;
87: 16, l 8, l 9;88:7;
89:20,21 ;97:4,4
dates (2)
87:15;92:15
David (4)
77:1;185:23;
curiosity - different (6)

186:8,8
day (15)
44:15;54:19,22,23;
57:6;86:9,24;9I :12;
96:8; 122: 16; 143:20,
23,24;148:19,21
days (8)
57:11;86:10;88:6;
91 :3;96:I0, 18,20,24
DC(2)
75:5;77:9
deal (3)
13:23;88: 15;143:5
dealer (3)
40: 16;4I:16,24
dealing (8)
22: l 9;40:25;
41 : I 3, 13;65:24;66:6;
70:7;71:8
dealt (6)
13:12,24;18:21;
29:24;4I:22;69:15
December (1)
52:19
decent (1)
60:8
decide (1)
94:5
decision (4)
94:12;197:25;
198:5,7
decisions (1)
63:25
declared (I)
29:23
defeat (JO)
66: 13;144:13;
145:25;149:2, 16;
153:6;154:25;
161 :24;162:25;
199:20
defeated (1)
154:20
defeating (S)
66:11,25;67:3;
146:2;157:18
defeats (2)
161:21,25
defendant (100)
4:17,21;5:9;81 :23 ;
84:22;86:2;88:4, IO;
89:5, 18,25;91 :7;
92: 14,21,23;93 :23;
95:14;96:5,7;98:2;
99:8,13;100:15;
103:10; 105: 12;
109:20,25; 111 :2;
l 14:i l,16;116:15,
18;117:6,23;119:16,
18; 120: 17,24; 124:8;
125:21,22; 127: I;
128:9,10,14,19,24;
129:7,11;130:24;
131 :S,14; 132:2,4;

133: 1,3;134:3,4,6;
135:8,12;137:5;
138:3,16;139:3,18,
21,21,23;140:8,l 7;
164: l,5, 19, l 9;165:2,
5,11;166:3;184:9,19;
185: 11 ;186:4,24;
191 : 13;192:1;193:4,
11,13,20,21;195:1,9;
197:4;198:10,23;
199: 15;200:7,9,12
defendants (2)
5:5,6
Defendant's (4)
105:22; 130: 13,21;
164:2
defending (3)
162:10,14,17
define (1)
35:21
definitely (2)
63:11,12
definition (2)
62: 11;65: 17
definitions (I)
50:19
deOector (7)
84:17;115:19;
116:5,7;119:17;
121:3,7
degree (7)
12: 18; 13:1;26:4,
21,23;27:23; 172:20
delicate (1)
146: 15
demonstrate (1)
122:25
demonstrating (1)
123:2
demonstration (1)
106:14
department (2)
64:25;20I : 12
departments (4)
12:8,9,21,24
depend (3)
125:7;148:18;
157:15
Depending (1)
155:6
depends (S)
16:22;56:25;
112:12;142:13;194:4
depicted (1)
87: 1
deploy (4)
17: 17; 18:6, 7,25
deployed (12)
17:22,24,24; 18:3,
4,7;19:8,20;20:14,
19;23:13,14
deposition (8)
4 :9,25;5:20;7:3;
51:17;156:23;
196: 18;20 I :25
Deputy (1)
197:16
describe (11)
15: 10;35:4;53: 18;
60:3;97:9; I 07:4;
113:12;135:6;
138:19;151:11 ;
164:12
described (7)
43:9;51 :21 ;52:21;
127:22; 158:16;
164:18;177:9
describing (6)
52:12;131:6;
150: 13;152: 10;
158:23;162:23
description (9)
52:24;60:6, I 9,21 ;
66:10;81:22;84:13,
25;85:22
descriptions (2)
61 :4;98:24
Desert (2)
20:20;23:23
deserves (1)
188:23
design (10)
39:7,10,12;47:18;
58: 1;83 :21;97:12;
132:24;134:23;
162:24
designated (J)
23:8
designed (11)
39:8;82: 19;93:8,
10;128:14;129:4,21 ;
138:7,10; 176:3,7
designing (2)
37:14,16
designs (3)
58: 14;59: 15,18
desirable (1)
10:14
desk (1)
56:24
destructive (1)
66:li
detachment (28)
7: 15,19,20;8:2,5,9,
16,21 ;9:4, l i ,13,19,
21,22,25;10:2,4,5,IO,
11 ,18,24;11:22;13:6,
16,i7,19;14:2
detachments (3)
8:14;14:5,8
detail (2)
34: 1;85:4
detailed (1)
83: 1
detectives (1)
1627
11 :23
determination (7)
99:23; I 00:23;
184: 16, 18,21,25;
185:7
determinations (1)
99:20
determine (6)
32: 15;36: 17;
92:24;93:22;94:9;
99:21
determined (3)
95: 16;97: 17;
100:24
determines (4)
133:13,23,25;
139:14
determining (1)
32:20
development (1)
47:18
device (21)
36:25;84: 13;
85:24;86: 19;93: 11;
98:21;107:15;
113:22;115:9;126:6;
127:21 ;135:8,13;
138:18;180:15,16;
189:3, 12;195: 18;
197:9;200: 15
devices (7)
37: 12;39:14;
66:11 ; 124:9;135:18;
146: 11 ;161 :22
devoted (1)
67:22
diagrams (1)
49:15
dictate (1)
109:9
die (1)
143:10
Diego (1)
76:3
difference (2)
76:12;176:11
differences (3)
134: 14, 18;136: 16
different (SS)
7: 13;8: 1,2,9; 10:5,
6,7;11 : 15;14:5,13,
13;22:24;23:17;
26:20;29:1;42:1 l;
43:8;50:20;54:4;
55:8;56: 14, 18;58:5;
62:4;65:9;66:20;
70: 15;71:8;77:22;
85:21 ;90:l7;95:6;
96:10,15;103:9;
124:4;130:10;
I 34:23 ;135:12,16,
18; 136:10,25;
137: 16, l 8, 19; 138:2,
\lin-U-~triptr\i
RIF

3,25; 143:7; 147:14;
150:24;155:23;
158:21;175:10;
I 77:5;184:21 ;200:21
differently (3)
11:15,16;174:20
difficult (4)
6:9;49:8; 146:8;
154:22
dimensions (5)
62: I 2;85:4,6, I 7;
166:6
direct (2)
17:15;73:3
direction (1)
94:3
directions (2)
49: 14;6 I :23
directly (7)
5: 11 ;93:20;94:22;
95:1;96:12;137:11;
196:4
Directors (I)
197:16
disagree (2)
189:16;197:1 I
disagreed (4)
182:4, l 3; 184:6;
185:10
disassemble (S)
47: 14;48:17,24;
49:15;70:2
disassembly (1)
194:18
discharge (I)
16:3
discharged (I)
16:5
discharging (1)
i 17:9
disclose (I)
183:10
discovery (2)
81 :24;165:8
discrepancy (1)
152:23
discuss (2)
100:18;183:8
discussed (4)
184:11,16;185:1;
196:21
discussing (S)
105:12;122:3,12;
157:3; 186~ 23
discussion (8)
44:6;81: 18;
100:12;140:25;
149:20;174:8; 191:5;
196:17
discussions (2)
197:8,20
disguised (1)
67:9
'fi11- l -~lripO
disjointed (1)
194:12
dismissed (3)
5:4,5,6
displayed (1)
96:16
disposed (1)
98:15
distinction (4)
43:21;136:12,24;
137:25
distinguishable (1)
185:19
distinguishing (1)
83:16
diversion (2)
49: 16; 135:25
divide (1)
90:17
divided (2)
91 :15;92:4
division (2)
17:20;197: 15
divisions (2)
17:19,21
document (I)
36:24
documentation (3)
29:5;98: 17,23
documents (2)
I 17:4;186:21
dog (1)
i89:21
domestic (2)
31:11;57:23
domestic-related (1)
11:5
done (22)
26: i 6;38:3;42:21 ;
50:12;5l :12;52: 11;
61 :16;62: 19;84:3;
94:9; i02.: l l ;105; 18;
109:1;122:16;124:1;
143:21 ;145:1 l;
146:8, 12, I 5; 150:20;
191:9
doubt (1)
130:24
down (13)
5:21 ;3I :15,23;
74:6;91:12;101:16;
I I 1:13;118:14,18;
119:18;121:1 l;
146:6;164:15
draw (1)
138:1
drawing (2)
136:13,24
drawings (1)
61:3
drill (2)
144:19;148:7
drilling (l)
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
40:2
drink (1)
6:19
driven (3)
137:19,23,23
drives (1)
108:1
drop-in (1)
200:16
duct (4)
108:7, 14; 112: 16;
113:4
duly (1)
4:3
Dunn (2)
80:18;81:9
Dunns (1)
80:21
duplication (1)
77:25
during (31)
20:20,25;23:4,5;
41:23;43:18;45: IO;
46:3,20,25;47: IO;
52:20;57:2;80:13;
86:20;87:5;95:22;
96:2,23;97: 16,23;
98: l; 107: l 5;122:7,
IO; 127:4; 128:22;
145:9;194: 1;196:18;
197:20
duties (21)
7:8,l 8;i0:9;13:21;
15:7; 16:7;24:24;
30: 12,15;33:6;34:2,
10;35:3;37:8,10;
43:8, I 9;64:22;66:6;
68: 13;90: 16
duty (16)
7:25; 14:13;17: 19;
24: 17' 18,23;25:5;
33:11,11,20;34:6;
50: 15;5 I :8, l 3;92: I 0,
11
E
earlier (10)
90: 16;125:20;
131 :18;139:2;
158:14;162:23;
164:18;165:7;
184:10;196:20
early (3)
20: 10;45 :13;46:25
earn (2)
26:23;28: 16
earned (1)
27:18
earning (I)
27:22
easier (4)
143:4;157:5,10,17
easiest (1)
144:24
easily (1)
97:19
Echo (I)
21:21
edge (2)
l 13:1;114:24
education (1)
27:16
effect (2)
61:5,8
effective (2)
36: 16,20
effectiveness (2)
36:5,7
effects (1)
139:5
eight (8)
15:20;34: I 7,20,20;
45: 11 ;74:4;76:20;
78:22
eight-hour (2)
143:24;148:21
either (34)
17:24; 18:18;35:9;
44:2;63:14,14;64:17;
68:8;89:20;93: 13;
94:13; 103:25; I 05:7;
l 19:1;125:9;137:10;
149:2; 153:6;157:13;
159:8; 161:9;162:2,3,
4;163: 17,18;169:7,8;
178:10, 14; 179: 15;
180:9;195: I ;201:10
ejected (2)
108:5;113:18
ejection (2)
103: 14; 120: 10
ejector (1)
120:5
elaborate (4)
64:5;101:4;120:6;
154:14
electric (1)
137:20
electronics (6)
16: I 5;27: 18,23;
28:1 ,2,3
eligible (1)
29:23
eliminate (2)
155:17, 19
else (17)
13:25;39: l 2,23;
49:21 ;50:22;5 I :6;
58: 1,13;90:9;92: 1O;
94:4;106:9;123:13,
16; 125:22; 147:23;
160:23
e-mail (12)
80: 17; 127:3,4,6;
186:7,22;187:5,8,22;
1628
188:4; 189:7; 190: 12

e-mails (3)
186:3;200: 19,22
emphasized (1)
21:12
emphasizing (1)
11:9
employ (2)
18:20;2 l :25
employed (2)
4:18;7:4
employment (I)
57:2
enable (2)
128:21,25
enclosing (I)
164:23
encryption (1)
25:13
end (12)
52: 16;55: 13,20;
59:21;61:19;76:14;
97:4; 120:22; 121: 16,
20;154:3;164:22
endanger (I)
109:24
endeavor (1)
52:25
ended (3)
10:23; 11 :2,3
enemies' (1)
18:11
energy (2)
137:12,24
Enforcement (10)
7:4;11:20;15:6;
30:14;31 :19;33:18;
41 :10;64:19;65:12;
67:20
engage (2)
127:24;128:4
engineering (1)
27:23
enlargement (1)
141 :13
enlistment (l)
24:19
enough (9)
45:6,6;97: 18;
110:10,11;113:15,
17;116:23;127:24
ensure (2)
83:11;147:22
enter (3)
73:22,23;187:17
enthusiast (I)
15:1 I
entire (8)
18:6,7;48: IS;
96:24;119:8;172:1;
176:8; 178: 1
entirely (3)
10:6;23:4;133: 16
(7) differently - entirely
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
entirety (2}
119:10,13
entitled (I}
64:3
entry (3)
52:9;53:9,11
equal (1)
121 :IO
equipment (1)
25:11
equivalent (l}
27:22
equivocation (1)
173:23
Ernest (2)
185:25;200:23
error (1)
183:25
errors (1)
185:5
escaped (1)
I I 7: I I
escort (l}
20:5
escorted (l)
20:2;21:1
especially (1)
32:16
essentially (3)
122:18;153:16;
166:17
et (I}
77:8
evaluating (I)
127:5
evaluation (1}
183:5
even (ll}
39:3;50:7;57: 11;
69:23;93: 13; 109:25;
113:3;119:9;124:21;
143: 17; 154:20;184:5
event (1)
193:21
everybody (2)
91:13;92:10
everybody's (I)
34:8
everyone (2)
18:3;197:5
evidence (20)
30: 15,21 ;37:9;
58: 10;68:4, I 0;87:22;
90:8, I 0,12;91 :2,5,11,
16, l 7,l 8, 19,20;92:6,
13
evldentiary (1)
37:5
exact (13)
43: I;74:9;85:5, 15;
86:7,13;88:7;137: 14;
142:9;147:10;
158:20; 167: 18;
entirety - findings (8)

169:21
Exactly (14}
44: 19;65: l 2;73:5;
85:9,18;112:6;
117:11;130:12;
135:22;136:15;
137:8; 138:24; 160:7;
186: 16
EXAMINATION (S)
4:5;99:24; 182:22,
24;199:10
examinations (1}
98:1
examine (S}
30:15,18;47:14;
48:1;63:9
examined (3)
4:3;97:11,12
examining (I}
37:9
example (7}
61:25;64:12;
135:24,25; 137:6;
181:22;200:16
examples (1)
47:13
except(J)
18:21; 150:22;
189:7
exception (6)
64:21 ;92:9;
103:13,16;160:11,12
exchange (1)
186:2
exchanged (1)
200:22
exclusive (I)
93:10
exclusively (2)
95:2;129:22
excuse (4)
30: l 9;49:24;86:3,
4
execute (2)
73:14,21
executing (4)
72:23,24;73:2,9
execution (1)
72:18
exhausted (2)
102: 15; 191 :23
exhaustive (1)
67:16
Exhibit (23)
82:3,5;87:1 l;
88:25;89:3; I 08: 12;
I 14:8;123:7,8;
165:25; 167:9, 12;
170:8,11,16,18;
185: 13, l 5, 16;
188:17,19;190:8,l l
Exhibits (1)
200:20
exist (1}
103:20
existence (1}
58:15
existing (l}
39:7
expand (1)
43:17
expanding (I)
137:12
expect (2)
168:25;191:13
experience (9)
37:14;39:19;
44:23,25;57:3;68: 19;
94:7;169:24;191 :25
experiment (1)
156:16
experimented (I}
156:17
expert (14)
29:22,23;76: 15,20,
23;77:23;78:8,20,22,
25;79:12;81:13;
190:21;191:6
expertise (l}
30:3
expire (2)
40:22;4 l :14
explain (S)
I 0:20;82: 16;
I 20:6; 152:22; 175:25
explained (1)
100:23
explanation (2)
6:5;136:16
explore (l}
119:1 I
explosives (1)
25:17
exposed (2)
102:3,5
extends (I)
127:24
extensive (6)
11:2;28:7;47:15;
49: 11;50:17;55: 19
extent (1)
48:4
F
fabricate (1)
84:17
face (5)
99:25; I 02:3;
137:13;189:7,9
facilities (3)
50:24;53:21,24
facility (1)
70:5
facing (1)
5:10
fact (S}
36:25;99: IO;
I 30:16;135: I ;160: I 5
factories (1)
50:23
factory (17}
53: J6;55:7,8,13,
22;56: 1,3,4,5;58: 16;
134:20,21;171 :24;
172:1,7;177:17;
178:17
factory-produced (1)
134:22
fall (1)
107:24
failed (2)
I 05:2;107 :23
fair (1)
11:6
fairly (8)
47:15;50:8;
160:25;167:15;
170: 14,21 ;173:17;
185:20
fall (I)
66:9
familiar (20}
15:5,8;17:18;
25: J 8;48:20;49:6;
50:8;58: 19;66: I;
7I:I3;79:18,22;
8I:22;177: 12; 186:2,
13; 187: 12; I96:22,
24;201:5
ramlliarlzatlon (1)
14:18
ramlllarlze (1)
47:17
family (1)
69:17
rar (14)
7:24; 15:7;20:9;
23:16;42:2;43:14;
54: 16;74: 10;88: 17;
109:1;125:13;
158:22; 168: 19;
182:12
fast (I)
110:10
FCC (3)
27:18;28:11;29:16
feature (10)
83:16;145:25;
146:2; 152:24; 154:3,
16,17;155:19;
167:20;171 :6
features (25)
54:15;82:19;
97:12; 135:6; 141 :9;
144:14;152:25;
153:3,7,11,14,21,24;
154:2,6,11;155:16,
18,23; 156:5, I 2;
1629
161: 19;162:24,24;
185:18
federal (26}
11:3;31:13,19;
32:11;40:15;64:18;
65: 13,23;72: 17,21;
73:2;74:23,23;75: 14;
76:13, 16,19,22;77:6,
14,23;78:2,11,16,22;
80:16
feed (13)
IOl:J0,12,13,16;
I 12:2;134:24,25;
138: 18; 142:7,8,10;
159:4; 164:24
reeding (4)
135:8, 13;191: 19,
21
feel (2)
15:23,24
feeling (I)
109:15
FEO (22)
33:10;46:15;
50:13, 14;52: 10;64:3;
7 I :23;73:3, I5;75:23;
76:4,J 5,20,23;77: 1,
I O,l 7,23;78:22,25;
79:12;124:6
FEO's (9)
34: I 3;35:2;46: 19;
52:2;60: I 6;61 :2;
68:14;69:7;92:1
few (11)
5:19;24:22;59:11;
72:4;75:4;86:10;
88:6;9l:2;130:25;
143:22;199:12
FFL(l)
41:16
lield (4)
16: l 5;22:4;73:4,
12
figure (2)
49:8,9
figuring (I)
49:5
fill(4)
20:21;22:18;
175:16,17
filled (1)
22:21
final (3)
42:16;96:1 ;198:9
linallzed (1)
184: 15
finally (1)
189:18
find (4)
48:8;5l:11 ;80:22;
124:15
findings (5)
95:24;96:14,16;
\1in-U-Script ~
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009

184: 11; 197: 11
fine (2)
6:5;183:16
finish (5)
5:22;27:8;84:16;
159:9,9
finished (10)
37:22;40:1,l ;53:4;
54:4;56:24;106:23;
160:9; 184: 17; 199:7
lire (49)
12: 14;40:3;97:18,
l 9;99:21; 100:22,22,
24; 102:12,14;103:7;
105: 17; 106:3,6, 10;
107:4, I5; 109:5,5,7,
I0,11,12,13,16;
I 10:2,2;1I1 :7;124:6;
126:1;138:7,I 1;
140:7, 11;142:11;
153:5;157:11,19;
158:24; 159:2,8;
163:21; 176:9;
182:23; 191: 16,22;
193:10;195:4,9
firearm (83)
3I :12;32: I 5,17,19;
33:2,4,5,5;38: 11;
43:12;44:4;47:11,17,
20,24;48:3, 16;5 l :25;
52: 10;57: 1,3, IO;
65:20,24;66: 15, I6,
21;67:6,12;73:5,6;
76:8;78: 11 ;79:4,24;
80: 1,8;81 :4;87:3;
97: 14,16;98:3;99:13;
109: 14; 129:6; 134:6;
135:3,14;138:6;
141 :12,24;142:1,12;
151 :I9;158:9, 16,19;
159: l 5, 19,23; 160:9;
166: 16; 169:5; 170:5;
171:11;174:14,15;
176:4;180:15;
181:22;182: 15,22;
183:20; 187:24;
192: 12, 14, I5,17;
194:19;197:15;
198: 15;200: 17,17
Firearms (112)
7:4;1 l:l,5;14:19,
21,23; 15:8;16:24;
17:8;21: 11,13, l 7, 18;
22:10,16,17;23:19;
25: 19;30:14;3I:11,
16;32:8, 14,14;33:23,
25;37: 15,17,23;39:9,
20,25;40:6, I5,25;
41: 1, 1,5,9,22,23;
42:5,10,19,24;44:18,
23;46:21 ;47:7 ,9,14,
25;48:4,10;49:12;
50:2,16,18,20,23;
\lin-l -!'.lrl11t~
51 : l,5;53:1 ;54:2,9;
57:4,6,7,13, 17,23;
59:4;62:2;64: 13, 13;
65:4,4,6,8,9,23;66:6,
10,21,22;67:9;69:18;
70: I 5; 71 :2,9;72:2,5,
8;76:7;78:3,4, 15;
99: l 9;101 :6;124:5;
132:20;135:25;
183:18; 187:14,17,
18,20; 198: 11;
201: 13,16,17,21
lirearmsrelated (11)
10:17,22;11 :7,9;
12:3; 13:9; 16: 17;
30:23;3I:7,14;78:9
fired (29)
90:2;93 :4,8; 100:4;
106: 12, 15, 16; 107:2,
15,23,24; I 08:24,25;
112:17;114:3,16,21 ;
116:18;117:3;
l 18:16;122:13,14;
125:22; 126:6, 16, 17 t
18; 140: 19;171: I5
firing (53)
83:13;95:23;
97: 19,21,25; IOI :18,
22,23;102:2,3,4,7,17;
105:23;106:7;
107:22,25;108:15;
I 09: I 3, 18,20; 110:6;
111 :3,23;112:5,14;
113:25;118:6;122:6,
l 1;123:17;124:7;
125:5,15;126:14;
127: 14; 128:9;
139: 19,20,22;140:8,
12,19;141: 17,18;
158:9; 167: 1; 192:22,
23; 193:20;194:1;
195:23;200:6
first (38)
4:3;20: 19,20;
33:21;35:17;46:1,4;
48:7;51: 13,21 ;61 :2;
68:24;82:2,7,11,13;
86: 1;89: 13;90: 15;
91 :9;95:5;97:11;
107:6,7,22;108:15;
109:10;112:14;
114:20;143:20;
148:23;177:20;
178:3, 18; 179:3;
180:1 7;190:13,19
first-line (I)
95 :11
fit (14)
39:5;43:12;65:9;
66:21;73:6,7; 133: 16,
18; 140:22,22;
151:25;161 :9;
164:10;1 81 :2
fits (1)
164:10
fitting (2)
39:4;160:6
five (4)
9:5;27:25;30:9;
56:18
fixed (7)
102:2,3,7,23,24,
25;103:3
Oat (1)
107:9
FLETC (4)
31: l 5, 18,20;32:3
Door (7)
151: 13, 14; 157:22,
25; 165: I 0, 18,21
Down (1)
31:23
Oy(2)
109:23;1I1:15
FNH (I)
55:3
focus (1)
194:17
focusing (2)
135:18,19
folded (1)
164:15
folder (3)
90:15,23;91 :9
folders (4)
90:19,22;91 :12;
92:7
follow (2)
39: IO; 189:6
followed (I)
97:9
following (1)
4:16
follows (2)
4:4;84:14
food (1)
86:5
force (26)
4:16,22;22:6;
107:16; 108:1,2,9, 17;
116:3,25;117:7, 16,
17,20;118:19;119:6,
1O;120: 1, 13, 16;
121 :6,9,lO,16,24;
195:19
forces (11)
20:22;25:2, 10, 12,
14;27: 10;28:4;
116:14;120:7;
137:10,20
fore (2)
101 :11;113:14
forearm (5)
111 :10,20;119:24;
120: 19; 159: 12
for~grip (1)
1.
142:17
foreign (2)
69:14,16
forget (1)
56:13
forgot (1)
28:12
form (2)
137:24;158:10
formal (4)
27: 15;38:21 ,22,25
formally (1)
21:4
format (1)
35:20
formed (1)
146:10
forms (5)
70: 17;71 :5,8;
134: 10; 164: 16
Fort (1)
19:15
forth (S)
38:9;48:9;73: 19;
91:21;137:10
forward (9)
115:11;141:20;
154:20; 164:22;
167:4;193:7;195:20;
196:8, 14
FOSTER(l)
162:8,12
found (I)
183:25
four (15)
5:1,13;7:7;9:7;
17:20;20: 12;30:10,
11;39:14,23;56:18;
76:14,18;77:14;
190: 11
fourlifths (3)
158:1,2;160:16
Fourth (2)
20:16,17
fraction (1)
57:1 3
frame (21)
95:8;129:7;
171:11;172:12;
174:12,13,19,22;
175:14;178:15,21;
179: 14,23; 180:8, 18,
23;181: 12, 13,23,24;
199:16
frames (4)
174:19;175:7,l I,
11
free (2)
26:24;162:15
freely (I)
192:17
friendly (1)
23:25
1630
'
front (12)
93:5;!00:16;
119:23,24;120:17,
23;121 :6;142:3;
159:3; 161 :3;178:24;
199:24
FTB (21)
44:3;60: 14;86:7;
89: l 8;94:4, 16,20;
103:12,19;104:3;
105: 14; 106:9; 170:4;
190:22; 191 :6;
196:22;201:8,10,12,
16,20
FTB's (3)
156:4,9,11
run (5)
26:9, 13;40:5,9;
114:3
rulltime (1)
32:4
fully (2)
159:18,22
function (33)
8:19;9:18;17: I;
25: 19;39:2 I ;48:20,
21;60:14;71:13;
97:13;100:3; 113:21;
134:10,12;136:7,13,
14,21;137:5,6;
138: 15,21; 139:24;
146:16;154:23;
160:1;162:3;177:5;
187:15; 189:14,15;
191: 12;192:2
functional (3)
159:14, 18,23
functionality (I)
135:7
functioned (2)
100:2;191: 12
functioning (4)
82:20; 142: I;
158:15,18
functions (14)
8:23;42: 11; 101 :3,
IO; 102:6; 134:8, 18;
135:11,19,20;
136: 19; 138:4,5,23
Funk(2)
77:8,8
further (12)
I 1:12;122:1,5,6,
I 1;129:8;143:17;
160:1;162:4;164:3,5;
201 :23
G
GJs (2)
24:1,6
Galbraith (I)
50:10
(9) line - Galbraith
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
game (1)
145:18
gamut (3)
12:4;2 l : I 8;58:20
garage (1)
59:9
Garry (1)
70:20
G-a-r-r-y (I)
70:23
gas (8)
118:1 ,14,17,19;
135: 14;136:3;142:5;
159:5
gases (3)
118:17,18;137:12
gather (1)
37:11
gathering (1)
52:23
Gatling (I)
137:17
gave (9)
21 :23;47:24;
52: I5;64:9;66:19;
71 :5;86:24;87:12;
126:8
GCA (10)
32: l 6;49:23,24;
50: 19;65:7, 10;78: 15;
l 70:5;192:14,16
gear (2)
25:13;65:22
geared (3)
41:11;65:15;67:19
general (S)
21 :20;33:13;
64:20;66:3;183:13
Generally (5)
8: I 3;37:25;54: 18;
59:24;9 I:23
generic (1)
57:16
gentleman (1)
11 : 1
gentlemen (2)
201:1 , 10
geographical (1)
8:3
geographically (1)
33:1
geography (5)
8: 12, l 8,22,23; I 0:7
Georgia (3)
3I :21 ;32:1;106: 18
gets (5)
33:10;91 :20;
183 :9; l 90:22,23
given (17)
4:9,24;26:21 ;47:7,
l 2;50:5;55:25;56:3;
64:21,23;67: l 5;69:6,
13,14;70: 19;74: 14;
game - highway (10)

183:19
gives (1)
187:1
giving (9)
5: l 9;58:25;59: I;
67:22;68:5,8, 12;
69:5;183:13
Glock(25)
15:5;55:6,7,10;
56:11,19;171:11;
173:4,5,8,9; 174:3,6,
9,18,22;175:6;
176:22; 177:2;
178: 16;179:19;
180:7,21;181: 1,18
Glocks (2)
176:24;181:10
glossed (1)
194:24
goes (18)
50: l 8,20;67:6,24,
25;73: 16;83:20;
109:18;117:5;
118:14;119:20;
133:20; 168: 11;
I 77:21 ; 178:4; 179:4,
8;186:25
good (4)
49:4;51 :10;158:6;
190:15
government (4)
32: l 7;38:4;82: 16;
169:9
government's (2)
165:8;166:12
gra,1> (5)
110:11,18,22;
I 12:3;148:8
graduation (1)
26:18
grammar (I)
185:8
grammatical (1)
185:4
Grand (9)
74:24;75:1,4,10,
l 8;76:3;77:6,9, 13
Grant (1)
77:5
Great (3)
23:8,11;143:5
grind (1)
146:6
grinder (1)
148:7
grinding (1)
146:11
grip (2)
142: 15;159: 11
groove (1)
144:7
ground (3)
19:22;22:2 l ;39:5
Group (9)
25:2;92:5,6;
142:18;151 :17;
159:4,5,6; 161 :7
Guard (8)
24:3,15,25;25:23;
27:2,6;159:12;
178:24
guess (50)
9:22; 13:1; 14:25;
19:24;20:2 l ;26:6;
29:15;30: 15;32:2,10;
34:5;36: I5;38:21 ;
39:8;41 :10;43:11,20;
46:1;55:23;57:12;
63: 19;65:3;76: 11;
86:23;88:10;92:14;
95:6,9;97:3;98:23;
108: 18; 110:9;
121 :12;125:7;
143:11;144:17;
149:4,8;153:11,12;
155:3;157:15;
168: 14;169:6;172:3;
175:21 ;177:15,22;
178:17;179:13
guest (2)
31:22;32:3
guide (21)
103:14;141 :13;
144:22;146:1,6;
148:9; 152:4,6; 153:1;
154:25; 155:8, 12;
l 56:8;160:4; 161: 15;
163:1,5,11,18;
170:23; 171 :3
guided {1)
7:21
gun (179)
15: 10;21 :21;
43:25;49:24;57:25;
58: 12;65: 14,16, 17,
18;71 :17,24;79:7,13;
80:7,15;8I :1,8;
83:14;84: 16;93:11 ;
98:6,7;99:16; I 01 :6,
8;110:9,25;127:20;
128: 10, I5,l 7; 129: I,
22,24,24;130:1,4, 16,
l 7;131 :14,24;132:8,
l 2, 12, 16,2 l ,23;
133:4,14;134:3,5,7,9,
I6;137:8,15,16, 17;
140: 15,16,18; 143:9;
144:11,21;148:24;
149: JO, 15,25;150:6,
17,19; 151 : 15,17,24,
25;152:11,20;153:2,
4,8,13, l 7,22;154:12,
13, 18, 19; 155:2,5, 10,
14,17,l 8,20;156:6,9,
13,20; 159:23,24;
160:2;161 :8,18,21,
24; 162: 1,3,25;

163:16;165:11,14,
23;166:2,11;168:6,7,
22; 169: 1; 170:6,20;
171: 12, 15,23; 172:3,
8,16,19,21;173:5,14,
18;174:6,9,13,13,15,
l 7,23;175:1,8,14,15,
23; 176:5, l O; 178:2,8,
11,12, 15,20; 179:14,
16,23,25;180:7,9, l 0,
13,22,23,25; 181:5,7,
11 ,20,23; 182:3;
184:19;189:14;
192:10;194:22;
198:11;199:18;
200:13,14,15,17
gunner (2)
20:17;69:1
gunner's (1)
69:8
guns (11)
23:20;58: 11 ;72:2,
6; 137: 18; 169:22;
170:2; 175: 16;
181 : l 2;182: 1; 198:18
H
H&K(l)
56: 10
HAS4RCCS {2)
82:18;83:12
half (5)
7:17;20: I 2;24:16;
25:24;46:3
hammer(2)
102:9; 103:2
hammered (1)
190:22
hammering (1)
191:7
hand (7)
48:3;82: 1;91:13;
111:21 ;112:2;143:3;
168:2
hand-deliver (1)
91 :10
hand-delivered (1)
91 :4
handed (1)
48:7
handful (2)
4 I :23;46:22
handgun (3)
174:19;175:7;
177:17
handing (2)
82:5;140:24
handle (14)
100:18;102:14;
110:11,18;111 :20;
113:16;142:16;
1631
195: 11 , 12,20;196:3,
8,12,14
handles (3)
60:8,11,13
hand-make (1)
143:11
hands (7)
48:21 ;69:22,24;
I 12:1;168:15;169:4,
10
hands-on (1)
54:15
handy (1)
143:15
hang (1)
188:20
hanging (1)
63:18
haphazard (I)
48:11
happen (4)
13:10,11;111:14;
193:20
happened (4)
21 :22;40:21 ;
I 13:8;193:25
happy (I)
63:24
hard (2)
66:15;148:18
head (7)
6:6;29: 12;76: 1O;
117:12;142:9;
173: 19;178:5
heard (1)
135:7
hearings (1)
75:15
heaviest (1)
17:13
heavy (3)
17:11 ;18:1l;
172:23
held (7)
40:14, 19;75:5;
86: 10, I5;88:5,23
help (3)
49:10;136:14;
137:7
helping (1)
199:13
Here's (1)
48:10
hey (I)
123:3
High (4)
26:2;27:2,8;38:23
highest (I)
15:19
highly (1)
30:3
highway (I)
11: 17
\liu-l -Scripl I<
RIF

himself(3)
34:18;126:4;
188:24
Historic (2)
84:3;199:20
historical (1)
32:13
history (2)
11 :2;47:18
hit (1)
194:5
HK (1)
69:18
hog (1)
146:19
hold (11)
40:10;107:13;
111: 13; 113:20;
115:1,3,14,22;145:1;
160:24;195:7
holding (8)
88: 10;91:2;115:6,
12;127:16,18;
169:22;195:18
home (1)
20:15
homemade (1)
59:8
homework (1)
49:19
honorably (1)
16:5
hood-like (1)
164:16
hook (2)
120:21,21
hooked (3)
l 19:22;120:23;
121 :6
hot (1)
159:11
hour (2)
54:19,21
hours (3)
27:25;97:6;143:22
house (2)
141:14;166:24
housing (S)
138:12;141:18;
166:25; 167: 1; 192:20
huh-uh (1)
6:6
hundreds (1)
57:8
Huntington (2)
64:14,24
hybrid (I)
16:13
I
Idea (6)
47:3;87: 19; 113:8;
'1in-l
~...,lriptJ<
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
116:17;117:19;
118:22
identical (8)
103: 18;134:12;
150:9,22; 151 :7;
165:2;167:22;175:1 l
identically (1)
102:7
identllicatlon (2)
64:14;65:5
identified (4)
65:8; 144:2;
153:21;161:20
identify (11)
72:11,12,14;83:7;
89:3;141: 1;149:22;
161:6;167:19;168:3;
171 :10
identifying (4)
65:5,6;73:5; 150:8
illegal (7)
62:25;63:11,13,14,
21;189:3,J l
Imply (1)
48:12
Import (3)
31:7;37:10;183:5
importability (2)
31 :9;183:18
important (4)
36:21;154:17;
156:7;183:7
Importation (2)
30:19;183:25
importer (2)
59:1;183:15
importers (2)
58:23;68:2
Imports (2)
31 :6,9
Impractical (I)
41:15
improper (1)
132:11
improperly (1)
183:22
Impulse (1)
35:23
inaccuracies (l)
83:6
Inaccuracy (2)
83:3,6
inaccurate (2)
82:25;84:2 l
Inch (1)
117:14
Inches (3)
62:14,15;93:9
Incident (1)
11:5
include (6)
11: 1;58:23;59:6;
61 : 19;82:18;142:18
included (5)
49:23;64:21;
158:3;165:21;190:1 l
includes (3)
34:22;42: 16;49: 11
Including (5)
9:5;34: 18,20;59:7;
159:6
incomplete (2)
82:25;84:25
Incur (1)
194:1
Indeed (1)
73:6
indicates (1)
173:21
indicating (2)
80:17; 120:17
Indicative (1)
172:15
Indictment (1)
75:2
individual (7)
11 :22;50:1 l;
65: 18;8 l :9;83:9;
92:20; 194:23
Individuals (5)
16:23;21 :25;22:5;
60:2;70:10
individual's (1)
74:16
infantry (1)
17: 16
Inferring (6)
18:23;41:21 ;
52:24;57: 12; 174:21;
198:6
Information (4)
37: 11 ;47:4;48:25;
183:9
initial (3)
51 :7;52:20;182:22
Initially (4)
14:23;35: 17;41 :2;
183:20
initiate (I)
196:13
initiates ( 1)
195:23
Injury (1)
194:1
Inordinate (1)
68:15
inquiry (1)
60:9
Insertion (1)
161 :25
Inside (4)
) 17:15;146:11,12;
168: 11
inspect (1)
100:17
Inspection (2)
84:22;99: 18
Inspector (1)
31 :24
inspectors (2)
12:15,15
Install (6)
134:3;142:5;
148: 12; 159:2; 181 :6;
195:8
Installation (4)
40:3;83:22;84:4;
128:25
installed (14)
83: 13,23; 128: l 0,
14,17; 129:8; 168:20;
172:8; 176:3,20;
l 77:5;181 :4;195:1,6
Installing (1)
131:13
Instance (6)
12:19;62:8;65:16;
68:21; 180: 17; 182:25
Instances (3)
51 :24;57:9;58:9
instead (3)
114:22;134:3;
149:6
Instruct (2)
32:11;129:16
instructing ( 1)
21:16
instruction (3)
43: 18;88: 11;95:13
Instructlo nal ( 1)
75:7
instructor (13)
21 :15;22:16;
31: 15,23;32:3,4;
55:7,23;56:1,3,5,6;
64:3
Insufficient (2)
85: 13; 118:25
Intact (4)
153: 15;154:7;
155:13;161 :23
integrity (l)
160:18
Intend (1)
93 :25
intended (3)
130:4;132:15;
175:8
intending (1)
133:22
Intention (I)
131 :13
Interchange (I)
200:10
Interchangeable (1)
181:14
Interchangeably (2)
8:6;133:20
Interest (2)
American Court Reporting Company9 Inc.
1632
118:9;124:3
interested (6)
33:4;40:24,25;
41 :13;124:13;137:3
Interfere (1)
113:17
internal (3)
32:9,10;44:3
Internet (2)
126:9,12
interrogatories (4)
82:2,7,12,13
interrogatory (3)
82: l 5, 15,22
interrupt (2)
30:21;135:17
Interrupted (1)
32:6
Interruption (1)
'
96:25
interstate ( l)
32:20
Into (43)
33:25;38:1 I;
40:19;43:20;50:19,
21 ;51:8;52:18;61 :7;
62: l 7;65:9;72:2,5;
73:6,7;80:25;81: 1,7;
101:16;102:5;
109:18;123:24;
128:17;141:24;
142:5;144:1 l;
149:14,24;150: 19;
151:25;152:1 l;
154: 12;158: 15,18;
159:10;174:15;
176:3,4,20; 178:2;
183:9;196:9;200: 16
Invasion (1)
20:24
Invested (1)
12:11
Investigated (2)
12:2,3
Investigating (2)
11:25;12:12
investigation (2)
I 0:25;75: 11
Investigations (10)
7:21,23;10: 17,22;
11:7,18,21;13:9;
30:17,17
investigators (2)
12:14;28: 15
Investigator's (1)
28:17
involved (18)
5:11;10:21,24;
21: 11 ;25:3;36: IO;
38: I 7;39:2;47:3;
57: I ;65: 14;72:22,24;
78: 14;8I:2;108:7;
114:12;125:16
(11) himself - involved
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16. 2009
Involvement (2)
72:18;87:6
Involving (2)
10:23;11 :5
issue (4)
14:23;78: 12;79:4;
80:8
issued (2)
15:6;183: l
Issues (3)
70:7;79:20,23
item (9)
66:8;9 I :20;92:20;
94:5,10;96:16;97:11;
99:24;183:14
Items (14)
30: 18,22;3I:7,10,
12;3 7: l 0;58:2;68: I;
91: 17,22,24;96:22;
189:15;193:17
J
January (2)
186:4,22
Japan (1)
20:18
Jefferson (l)
75:25
job (8)
7:12,14;10:14;
51 :2,4;67:24;73:3;
148:2
jobs (2)
7:13;74:2
John (6)
7:1;94:14,19,24;
95:2,4
join (1)
!04:23
joined (l)
27:5
joint (6)
105:1,5,9;116:23 ;
118:25;119:1
joints (1)
67:2
journeyman's (1)
28:1
July (2)
45:16,20
jump (4)
13:6;14:15;27:9;
82:14
junior (2)
27:5,7
juries (1)
75:5
jurisdiction (2)
12:6;32:18
jurisdictions (I)
12:23
Jury (9)

74:24;75:1,7,IO,
18;76:3;77:6,9, 13
latch (2)
164:10,JO
late (1)
K
45:14
Later (9)
keep (I)
20:9;21 :14;41 :6;
5:19
96:21;99:9;122:8;
182: 16; 183: 1; 184:22
keeping (1)
law (11)
109:2
kind (37)
I5:6;30:6;3I:19;
33: 18;64: 13,19;65:5,
6:1;8:6;14:21;
22:18;29:11;41:19;
12;67:20; 132:20;
185:5
42:4, 13;5 l :2,22,25;
laws (4)
52:9,23;54: 14,19;
37:12;4 I :9;65:5,
60:9;6I:13;65:4,21;
67:24;73: 11 ;76:5,8;
23
78:4;79:3;90: 16, 17; lawyer (1)
J04:21;1I1:9;113:2;
162:13
laying (1)
127: 15; 129:6;
131 :14;132:18;
l 13:9
I 50:2; l 53: l 9; 160:25 leader (1)
kinds (4)
22:8
leading (l)
4:14;22:4;56:15;
75 :15
53:23
KINGERY (4)
lean (2)
4:2,8;100:14;
111 :9,19
learn (4)
199:15
51 :4,10;70:2;
kit (3)
38:8,8;39:9
170:4
learned (1)
Knapp (2)
71 :19,22
45:6
teaming {l)
knob (l)
195:14
45:1
knowledgable (1)
least (10)
36:2I ;44:14;72:4;
I 8:11
I 26:4, l 8; 138:17;
knowledge (7)
151:13;171 :14;
21 : 17;70: 11 ;94:7;
198:15;199:1
129:16; 190:7;191 :8;
leave (4)
201 :15
63:17;153:14;
known (I)
165: 18; 180:25
58:15
leaving (1)
knows (1)
129:17
103:22
left (19)
9:6,15;24:18;
L
111:10,19;112:13;
114:12;119:15;
labeled (1)
121:2;141: 13; 144:5,
55:22
14;152:4;153:1;
lack (2)
155:13;158:23;
124:1;177:15
160:4; 161 :I5;170:23
large (7)
legal (6)
43:9,12;44:12;
63:4,7,7;95:25;
60:3;64:7;68:1;
185:4;197:13
151 : 13
Legally (1)
largely (1)
36:19
132:13
legs (1)
larger (I)
6:20
107:10
Lejeune (1)
last (13)
20:13
7:14;9:10;16:9,13;
Len (2)
25 :8;46:3;54:22;
187:9; 188:23
57:12;70:23;76:25;
93:18;131 :7;190:13 length (S)
Involvement - looking (12)
62: 14,15;101: 19;

119:9;121:1 I
lengthy (1)
82:21
less (9)
54:13;62:14,15;
71: 13;93:9;94:5;
97:3;119:6;147:22
letter (29)
60:6;61 :19;63:17;
89: 14,21,22;90:24,
24,24;92: 19,22,24;
93:1,5,14,16,22;
95: 18;96: 1,6; 107:6;
126:24,25;127:2;
129:19;184:15;
185:8;197:9; 199:5
letters (2)
60:3;91:23
level (7)
18: l 5, I 5;22:24;
38:25;39:24;57:3;
188:25
library (2)
47:15;49:1 I
license (13)
28:11;29:16,17,21;
30:6;38:4;40: 15;
41 :3,4,4,8,12,20
licensed ( 1)
59:19
licenses (4)
28: I 0;29: 15;
40:J0;41 :1I
licensing (1)
71 :8
lifetime (1)
27:21
lifted (1)
93:13
light (3)
18: 12;2 I : 18;
109:15
likely (3)
97:19;100:24;
142:13
limit (2)
43:15;44:6
limited (l)
82:19
line (6)
73: 18; 121: 15,18,
21,22,24
lines (1)
29:9
link (1)
126:3
Lintner (l:Z)
185:25;186:3,23;
187:11,23;188:7,22;
189: 18;190:14;
200:23;201 :5,20
list (19)
American Court Reporting Company. Inc.
1633
20: 1;47:7 ,25;48:4,

I 0, 14, 16;49: 13;53 :6;
64:6;67: I5;70: 14;
73:9;74:3;75:22;
78:23;91:15, 19,20
listed (7)
68:23;76:14,18;
77: I 0;78:3,22;84:20
lists (4)
76:15;78:21;
91:15;92:2
little (19)
21 : 17;24:16;39:5;
42:9;52: 18;60:7;
61:6;68:l4;69:22,24;
70:2;84: 10;85:20;
107:8;145:18;
147:24;157:17;
196:17;199:13
load (2)
103:8;195:8
local (7)
12:23,24;3I:13;
64:19,25;65:1 l,13
located (1)
186: 17
location (S)
19:17;73:21;
74:13;85:5;147:10
locations (3)
19: 19; 166:7; 177:6
locked (2)
102:6;117:16
long (24)
7:6, 16;9:13;15:13,
I 7;25:22;26: 14;
40:18;41:10;44:21;
45:4;48:15;54:18;
56:22;60:25;61 :7;
88:4;95:20;96:6;
143: 13, 15; 148: 17,
19; 153: 19
longer (9)
57:11;107:12;
147:24; I50: 16,23;
151: I 8,20;196:21;
197:1
long-term (1)
193:14
look (IS)
23: l 5;57:5;59:4;
66:5;74:5;82:14;
114:8;117:3;123:3;
141:1;146:21;
147:23;149:21;
172:14;190:24
looked (3)
25:8; 165:3; 185:3
looking (9)
37:9;65: 19;
108:13;159:10;
171:13;172:18;
173:12;186:7;190:12
\lin-U-~ cr ipt h
RIF

looks (19)
6: 1;52:17;67: 11;
74:4;79: 11 ;89:4;
93:18;114:9,10,12;
115:6,18,24,25;
150:4; 171 :22;
173:24; 174: I; 187:23
looped (1)
115:7
loose (S)
109:23;112:24;
193:17,19,25
lot (11)
25 :12;47:3;49:19;
51 :23;57:23;62:1,4;
68: I 1;80:20;142:20;
146:22
low (3)
113:15,17;127:24
lower (15)
108: 13; 128:5, 1O;
133:4,11;134:4;
139:3,11,13,17;
140:4,8,12,18;
151:13
lucky (1)
19:1 I
luggage (1)
67:6
lunch (2)
81 :19;86:5
M
Ml0/11 (1)
53:12
M14 (1)
17:2
Ml4's (2)
21:23,23
M16 (2)
17:3,4
M16's (1)
21 :23
M240 (1)
23:22
M60 (2)
21:21;23:21
MAC(76)
53:11;83:16,17;
84: 15;93: I0;97: 15;
99: 13;127:19,19,25;
128:5, I 0,14, 17,25;
129:22; 130:4;
131: 14;132: 16,21,
22,24;133:3,10,11,
14,18,19,25,25;
134:3,4,5,9, 15, 15,20,
22,23; 135:1,2,4,8, J0,
12,15; 137:4;138:2,3,
9,I0,16,17,19;139:3,
3,6,8,l J,13,17,22,24;
140:4,8,l l,12,13,15,
'1i11-l '>lriptQc
21;164:20;i91 :JO,
19; 192:6, l 2; 193:7
machine (182)
21:20;34:7;37:22;
~8:18;65: 16,17, l 8;
66:14;67:7;71 :17,24;
72:2,6;79:7,13;80:7,
15;81 : l ,7;83: 14;
84:16;93:10;98:5,7;
99:16;101 :6,8;
127:20; 128: I 0, 15,
17,25; 129:22,24,24;
130:1,4,16,17;
131 : 14,23;132:8,11 ,
12,16,21,23;133:4,
14;134:3,5,7,9,16;
137:8, 15, I6; 140: J5,
16,18;144:11,21;
145: 14; 148:24;
149: I0, 14,25; 150:6,
17,19;151 :15,17,24,
25;152:11,19;153:2.
4,8,13,16,22;154:11,
13,17, 19;155:2,5,10,
l 4, I 7, 18,20;156:6,9,
I 3,20; 159:23,24;
160:2; 16I :8,18,21,
24;162:1,3,25;
163: 16;165: I l, 14,
23; I66:2, I l ;I 68:6,7,
22; 169: 1,22; 170:2,5,
20;171:12,15,23;
172:2,8,16,19,21;
I 73:5, 14, I8;174:6,9,
13,13,15,17,23,25;
175:7,14,15,16,23;
176:5,9;178:2,7,11 ,
12,I 5,20;179:14,16,
23,25; 180:7,8,l 0, I 3,
22,23,25; 181:5,7, l I,
12,20,23; 182: 1,3;
184:19;189:14;
192: 10;198:10,18;
199:18;200:13,14,
15,17
machined (1)
I 76:21
machinery (1)
143:5
machines (2)
53:24;54:1
machining (S)
38:13,17,19,23;
39:4
MAC's (2)
53 :13;62:6
Magistrate (1)
75:19
maintain (1)
41 :25
maintained (2)
14:17;41:24
maintaining (3)
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
18:9;34:2;35 :8
maintenance (1)
22:10
majority (6)
43:10,12;44:12;
52: 13;58: 12;93:17
makers (l)
47:18
makes (8)
29:22;54:2;
118:13;144:3;168:7,
22; 174:25; 178: 16
making (9)
40:9;57:25;58: 11;
59:15;65: 15;125:13;
149:5;165:5;174:19
malfunction (2)
102:16;191 :24
manipulated (1)
100:8
manner (S)
43: I 3;63:23;85:9;
127:17;187:3
manuals (3)
49:12,14;196:20
manufacture (13)
58:6;71:!0,IO;
82: 18; 147: 1;164:1;
I 75:7,8,12, 13,18;
179: 14;181 :5
manufacture' (1)
187:24
manufactured (22)
37:25;38:2;57:17,
23;58:24;98:21;
99:6;128:21,24;
129:3,25; 145:5;
166:12;169:5,13;
173: 14; 174: 12;
177:22;180:11,12,
14,22
manufacturer (19)
35: l 8;44:2;54:2;
57:24;58:25;59:7,8;
74: 18;84: 1;91:16;
99:11;169:17,20;
174: 12; 179:22;
183: 15,23;189:22;
190:3
manufacturers (14)
31:11;33:14;36:9;
53: I8;54:8;57:24;
58:22;59: 13,19;68:2,
9;90: I8;92:5; 190:6
manufacturers' (4)
50:24;53:20;
90:22;9 I :22
manufactures (1)
180:7
Manufacturing (30)
37: 17;39:2,20,24;
54:5,16;70:5,7,8,J l,
13;71 :9;81 :23;83:11,
21,25;84:1 J,20;85:1;
99:8; 128:22,23;
145:7,9;166:1;
i68:13,18;175:6,l 1;
180:6
many (23)
9:3;11 :14,15,19;
32: 16;34:13;42: 19,
24;43:3,4;46:21,24;
55: 12;57:4,5;59: I0,
12, 17,20;96: I 0;97:6;
I 08:21; 198:25
marathon (1)
6:21
Marine (34)
14:12,12;15:21;
16:21; 17: 18; 18: 18;
19:5,10;20:3,6,IO,I I,
17,I 8;23: 1,6,7,7;
24:20,23;25:4;27: I 7;
36: 11;40:19,20;4 I :6;
49:7;68:21,24;69:2,
8,25;70:6,9
Marines (13)
15: 16, 17,18,23;
16: l ,7;22:3,5,7;24:5,
9,13;69:1
Marines' (I)
17:14
mark(4)
87: IO; 167:7;
173:21;188:15
marked (14)
82:3;88:25;89:2;
167:9,11;170:8,10,
16;185:13,15;
188:17,19;190:8,IO
market (2)
129:25; 189:23
marklng(l)
50:21
markings (I)
50:21
marks (8)
166:3,6,8; 171: 19,
21,25; 172: 15,22
marksmanship (2)
14:18;22: 13
marshal (1)
67:8
marshals (2)
12:14;66:19
Martinsburg (I)
13:19
Mason (1)
4:8
Master's (1)
27:22
material (5)
85:21,23; 160:20;
161 :1;171 :17
materially (1)
87:4
1634
maUer(6)
36: l 8, l 9;94:4;
154:25; 160:20; 184:5
matters (1)
29:24
MAX(2)
4:2,8
may (22)
52: 13;54: 10;57:1;
58:2,25;63:8;65:23,
24;67:25;69: 19;
74: 12;86:8;90:2,5;
92:15;103 :25;
125:17;126:5;
133:17;155:7;
157:17;185:18
maybe (10)
52: 18;59:5;61 :6;
62:22;84:9;96: 12;
119:10;131:7;
182: 18; 196:20
McCoy (1)
19:15
mean (46)
5:7;8:4;29:4;
30:21;38:12;39: I 7;
43:22;44:14,23;
45:21;48:I2;49:24;
50:2;52:6;54: 12;
56:2;60: J2;65:20;
67:23;85 :23;90:12;
98: 12,24; I 00:7;
103:3;105:21;
106:25;117:24;
123: 19,21 ;125:7;
130:17;132:6;
134:12;135:17;
142: 1; 145:22; 158:8;
160:24; 166: 17,23;
173:24; 180:18;
182:19;195:12;
197:19
meaning (2)
138:20;149:15
means (9)
56:10;64: 10;90:4;
110:5;125:17;145:5;
192:17;194:11;198:6
meant (3)
130:22;164:19;
186:8
measure (3)
36:4;37:3;85: I 0
measured (1)
117:2
measurement (2)
35:23;36:2
mechanic (1)
28:1
mechanical (3)
102:15;113:21 ;
191 :23
mechanically (3)
(13) looks - mechanically
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
49:4;100:2,7
mechanism (39)
101 :10,12;102:8;
103: l,2;108:5;
109:12,14,14;
112:18;113:20;
I 16:18;117:18,20;
118:13,20;127:16,
21;134:24,25;
139:23; 140:2,3,5;
141: 17, 19;142:8, 10,
17;155:6;159:3,4,7,
I 1;167:2;192:22,24;
193:1,23
mechanisms (2)
38:10;142:15
melded (1)
42:13
member (3)
4:12;25: 14;34:21
members (2)
64:21,25
men (1)
8:7
mention (3)
29:14;103:23;
196:24
mentioned (8)
21:7;53:15;54:24;
65:21;150:14;
151: 10; 162:25;197:6
messy (l)
6:1
met (1)
6:25
metal (11)
65:20; I 05: 1,4;
107:9,9;113 :3;144:7,
9;164:21;189:2,11
method (9)
97:13;110:8;
112:23;135:15;
137:14,23;143: 1;
144:17;147:6
methodology (1)
193:10
methods (6)
36:21 ;66:4;72:3,4;
136:25;137:3
Mexican (1)
86:5
MG(l)
79:7
MG3's (2)
24:1,6
middle (1)
111 :23
might (39)
11:11;12:18;
33:16,18;47:20;
52:25;57: 10,24;58:8,
17;61 :16;62:16;63:4,
6;66:9;67:5;68:2,8;
mechanism - NFA (14)

70: 16;72:7;73:5,7;
94:25;96:6,24;
123:19;124: 13,17;
130:22; 134: 17;
135:19;137:4,5;
138:21; 147:24;
193:17,l 8;194:7,24
Mike (9)
46: 14;48:20;
49: 10;50:6;5t :14;
52:5,8;71 :19,22
MILAN (l)
23:22
military (10)
15:21 ;20:22;
21 : t 6;25:21 ;29: I;
64: l 8;67:20;68: 18,
20;95:8
millimeter (2)
132:25;140:16
millimeters (I)
140:19
Milwaukee (2)
77:23;79: 16
mind (11)
5: 19;43:23;59:3;
95:8;130:13,21,23,
24; 131:20;132:2;
184:22
mine (1)
8:15
Minnesota (I}
74:8
minute (4)
14:15;34:1;
105:16;119:25
missed (2)
94:25;183:21
mlsslleman (1)
17:6
missing (6)
53:8;55:4;160: 15,
21;161:1;163:7
misspeaking (1)
130:22
misspoken (1)
72:7
mistake (1)
184:4
misunderstood (1)
45:24
mixed (1)
52:14
mock (1)
187:2
model (7)
172:25; 173:4;
180:13,14,18;
194:19,19
modification (9)
58:18;128:1;
129:8; 146: l; 149:5,9;
160: 1O;177:6; 184:2
modifications (11)
58:17;82:17;
128:20; 148:5; 150:7.
13; 151 :12,22; 157: 1;
159:25;160:1
modified (21)
58:16;101:8;
127:22; 128: 16,20;
149:12,23,24,24;
150: I, I6,23; 151 : 11;
152:7,17;153:8;
161: 16;164:3,5;
171:22;177:23
modlfy(lO)
147: 18,21 ;152:12;
160:4,13;162:4,5;
163: 18, 19; 172:11
moment (1)
172:18
MONROE (40)
4:6;7: I ;36:3;
51: 15,19;81 :21;82:4;
89: I; 100: 10, 13;
I 04:19; 130:2,19;
131 :11,21;155:24;
156:2,21 ,25; 162: 13,
22; 167:7, 1O;170:9,
17;179:21; 180:5;
183:11,16;184:1;
185: 14;188:15, 18;
190:9; 194:6,9; 199:7'
9;200: 19;20I :24
months (8)
9:14;16:22; 19:16,
18;24:22;45:11;
46:20;67:25
Moorefield (1)
10:1
more (SI)
10: 14;13:3;18:20;
21:12;24:l7;25:3;
29:9;34: I ;35: IO;
40:25;41:5,11 ;43:5;
46:24;48: 14,21;
54: 13,21,22;55:5, 19;
59:23;6 l :6;66:4;
68: 14, 17' t 8;69:22,
24;71: 13;81 :2;94:5;
96:7;111:3;116:14;
121 :5;142:12;
143:20;148:1,10,19;
156: 16; 158:6;161 :3;
190: 16,21,22;
194:10;198:22,23;
201:24
Morgan (1)
75:25
MOS (6)
16:8,13, 19;17:4,
I 1;25:6
most (14)
36:22;52: 1, 17;
54:8,22;58:3, 10, 14;
59: 18;72:3; 143:24;

144: 17;154:16;156:7
mostly (2)
38:18;54:17
motor (1)
137:20
mount (5)
129:19;132:15;
133:3;139:2;140: I 7
Mountain (l)
19:14
mounted (2)
130:4; 135:2
mounting (S)
120:9; 132:21;
151 : 16, l 8, I9
mouth (1)
85:12
move(4)
72:15;112:1;
137:9;181:19
moved (3)
32: 19;181 :25;
182:1
moving (3)
6:6;146:11; 196:12
MP(l)
21:4
much (18)
l 0: 11 ;29:24;37:3;
51 :4;54:21 ;58:21;
67:21,23;79: 19;81 :2;
107:18;112:12;
118:22;120:13;
157:25; 160:20;
161:1;187:1
multiple(7)
4:15;86:25;109:6,
8,21;111 :7;198:18
multiple-day (1)
52:25
municipal (1)
12:8
murders (I}
12:4
museum (1)
51 :3
museums (2)
50:25;51:1
must (1)
145:10
myself(to)
7:22;9:5;47: 17;
48:13,22;55: I 5;77:4;
123:5;156: l 7;197: 14
N
name (6)
4:7;6:25;24:3;
51 :24;52:l6;70:23
named (3)
47:24;48:3;52: I
1635
names (1)
9:22
narcotics (1)
78:16
narrow (2)
84:10;157:14
narrowed (1)
155:12
narrowing (1)
157:4
Nashville (1)
80:16
National (12)
24:3,15,25;25:22;
27:2,6;50:2;7 l :2;
187: 13, 16,20; 198: 11
nature (12)
7:25;21:2;22:14;
25: 13,17;35:7;43:19;
49:15;71 :11;75:8;
85:5;102:10
Navy (l)
22:6
near (1)
74:18
nearly (1)
157:16
necessarily (6)
29:4;84: 12;
147:21;156:14;
181:15,25
necessary (3)
48:5;103:7;172:11
need (21)
6: 18;38:4;62:20;
65:24;73:25;77:3;
87:10;142:3,4,6,11;
143:1;148:10, IO;
155:7;157:2;158:16;
159:2,3,5,7
needs (2)
94:9; 102: 11
neither (1)
163:9
new (13)
23: t 9;57:24,25;
58: 17,24;59:15, 18;
60:24;68:24; 147:7'
12; 148: 12;181 :5
newest (1)
34:21
next (8)
73: 15, 18;76:2;
77:22;91 :19;105:10;
112:21 ;113:24
NEXUS(S)
31 :15,16;32:7;
33:24;50:16
NFA (13)
49:23;50:2, 19;
65:8, I 0;70: 17;7 l :5,
8,9; 169:4; 187: 18;
192:12,16
\lin-l
-~cript Iii
RIF

NFRTR(2)
187:17,19
nine (1)
34:24
nods (2)
173: 19; 178:5
nomenclature (2)
I03:15;142:9
None (4)
38:21 ;83:24;
117:17;121:24
non-electrically (1)
137:22
nonlmportable (1)
183:21
non-motor (1)
137:23
nonreciprocating (1)
196:10
noon (1)
81:19
nor (I)
163:9
normal (5)
55:20; 109:2,4;
l 10:8;132:22
normally (2)
69:20;IOI :12
North (1)
20:14
northern (1)
74:17
Norway (5)
19:8, I 7;20:8;
23:14;24:2
Nomegian (1)
24:3
notation (1)
56:8
notations (1)
79:2
note (3)
10:16;118:8,l l
noted (I)
86:22
noticed (1)
101 :10
notified (1)
91 :1
nottry (1)
90:13
November (2)
52:19;53:12
number (37)
12:2;21: 1;43:2;
44:8;60:3;64:7;
66:20;67:18;68:1;
82: 15; 152:25;153:7,
15,16;154:4,7,I 1;
159:10, 14;167:23,
24,25; 168: I, 1,3;
169: 18;170:12,14,
20,22; 171:9;173:13;
\lir1-l -0..,nipt<r
178: 19,21 ;179:2,11,

23
Obama (1)
58:4
object (101)
129:14;140:24,25;
141:14,23;146:4;
149: I 5, 19,20; 150:9,
I 0,21,22,22; 151 :2,8;
152: 1,6,10,15,25;
153:7,11,15,16,20;
154:4,7,11 ;157:2,3,4,
5,8,20;158:8, 15,18,
25; 159: 1,14,18,21,
22;160:8,9,15,25,25;
161 :6,9,10,17,20,20,
23,23;162:2,3,8;
163:4,4,7,9,9,11,14,
15,17,17,19,24;
165:2,3; 166: 16, 16,
24;167:14, 16,18,20;
168:1,3,15,19;
169:18;170:12,14,
19,22;171:7,9;
173:12;179:23;
180: 1;185:18,20,21,
21;200:2,3
objected (1)
136:17
Objection (6)
104:13;130:10;
131 :18;155:21;
162: 18;179: 17
objects (2)
162:4;169:18
observation (1)
172:2
observations (3)
37:11;100:21;
199:3
observe (1)
124:7
observed (4)
100:2;111:7;
124:18;127:12
observing (4)
123:21;124:13,22;
125:5
obstructions (1)
121:23
obtain (2)
47:13;48:5
obtained (2)
38:8;132:8
obviously (9)
18:7;21:11;53:22;
70: l 0;73: 18;94: I8;
95:23; I03:8; 197:14
occasion (2)
4:24;109:7
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
Occasionally (2)
31 :10;91:24
occasions (4)
4:11;74:12;96:14;
111 :8
occur (2)
76: 14; 193:22
occurred (1)
191:24
Off(16)
29:12;48:5;50:1 I;
60:5;62:9;76:9;
81 :18;84:6;100:10,
12;108:19;112:19;
117:12;137:1 I;
142:9; 196: l
office (13)
7:24;8:5;13:18;
44:16;50:10;73:1 I;
75:6;86:7,10,22;
90:13;92:14;95:3
officer (8)
4: 18;7:5;26: 19;
30:14;33:11,12,20;
78:20
officers (3)
9:3,8;66:7
official (8)
I5:7;43: l 4;60:20;
61 :9,13,21 ;62:23;
156:10
often (8)
25:15;32:16;
55: 18;58:14,24;60:2;
65:11;124:4
Okinawa (1)
20:18
old (2)
i5:15;58:1
Olorson (6)
77:1,16,21;79: 16;
81 :16;182:21
omitted (1)
85:22
once (11)
20:6;44: 14;49: 13;
73:24;91: 12;108:24;
110:5;118:16;
143:21;188:22;
191:16
one (146)
8:13, 15;10:6,22,
24;11:4;14:15;16:9;
17: 19,21,22; 18:20;
19: 11, 16;20: 1;23:24;
26:15;32:3;33:11;
34:1;35:5,6;36:12,
16;46:9,18;47:.20,22,
24;48:4,5,7;49: 18;
52:4,11;54:22;55:15;
56: l 9;57:6;63:22,23;
64:12,20;65:21;
66: l 7;68:23;69:5;
70: 14;71 :16;72:19;

74:7, 16,17,18;75:9,
24;76:25;77:7,22,24;
78: I 0, 14;79: I 5;96:8;
98: I I, l 2,l 6;99:20;
100:22;!04:2;
I 07: 15,23,24; I 08:3,
25;112:17;121:9,16;
I 24:12;125:14,15,
23; 126:4, 18; 135:6;
139:5,22;141:6,l I;
143:21,21; 152:2;
153:3,14,14;154:2,3,
6, l O; 155: 17; 156:5,
11;157:5,9,9;158:23;
159:8,9;160:11;
161: 19;162:4, 13,14;
167:23,24;173:20;
175:13;176:19;
177: 12; 182: 1,3, 17,
18; 183:4; 188:9,25;
189: 19,21; 190: 13,
13,19;191:20;
192:23;193:11;
194:3,25; 196:21;
197:3,15,16; 198:9,
16,22,23;201: 1,3
ones (18)
4:15;35:3;40:9;
55:22;56:3, I8;72:20,
21,21;75:13;76:22;
77:13,14;78:2, 14;
147:12;148:1 l;
200:21
one's (1)
181 :10
ones's (1)
182:12
only (33)
4:24;9:14; 12: 19;
13:7;19:11;26:18;
35:5;69:5;74: 15;
79:25;84: 10;88:13;
102:11;103:6;107:2;
125:4,14,15,23;
138: 12, 15; 139:24;
141:11;149:12;
173:4,9;174:5; 176:8,
18;177:11;182:3;
191:16;197:24
onto (5)
129: 19; 137: I 2;
139:3;164:8; 188:20
open (6)
83: 17; 101 :7,9;
135:3,4; 154: 19
opening (2)
107:11;161:16
operate (2)
101:9;111:20
operated (3)
135:14,15;136:3
operates (5)
1636
101:7,12;117:24;
118:20;142:10
operating (3)
70:3;119:7;139:6
operation {10)
20:25;25: 18;70:3;
110:19;135:16;
137:23;161 :21,24;
162:25;163: 17
operator (1)
25:7
operator's (1)
27:20
opinion (2)
155:15;156:6
opposed (5)
8:19;109:8;112:9,
9;131:15
opposite (1)
155:12
option (1)
5:8
order (24)
12:1;16:11;30:5;
32: 17;48: 14;91 :20;
105:17;110:1;
132:19;141:10;
146: 16;149:14;
153:5;157:11;162:2;
163:16;172:12;
175: 16,17,17;177:7;
187:21; 196:25; 197:7
organized (3)
8:11,18;11:14
origin (6)
31: 16;32:8, 13, 14,
15,25
original (13)
84:1;134:23;
135:10;138:17;
145:4;147:1,10;
149:4;15l:6,17;
159:3;164:11;191:18
originally (5)
104:3;150:4;
151:3;173:14;184: 18
others (IS)
8:15;21 :2;28:24;
29: 19;35:6;49:7;
56:21;68:l7;77: 1,8;
124:13;125:16;
184: 12, I 6; 185: 1
Otherwise (3)
6:14;98: 15;105: 13
ours (1)
23:18
out (44)
5:3;13:19; 19: 13;
20: 13, 18;23: 18;41 :7;
42: l ;48:9;49:8,9;
55: 18;62: 10;74: I;
80:20;96:2; 100: 15;
108:5,10;115:7;
(15) NFRTR- out
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
I 20:8;124:2, 15,22;
144: 19,20; 145:1;
146:19;147:7,18;
152: 12; 154:2, 10;
157: 18,22,25; 158:2;
I 59:9; 166: 10, 16, I 6;
175:16;186:25;
193:23
outside (2)
126: 1,25
over (15)
6:1;I3:20;19:18;
20:14;30:10,11;
32:18;42: I ;44:9,22;
54:9;71 :7;82: 14;
83:1;194:24
overall (2)
62:14;68:13
overheard (1)
103:22
overlap (4)
12: 19; 13:2;27: l;
42: 13
oversaw (I)
7:20
overturned (3)
182: 16,17,19
overview (1)
79:20
own (17)
18: 14;28: l 6;41:5;
45:7, I 0,22;48:6;
49:8,9;70: 13; 124:23;
134:25; 139: 18;
179:10;181 :10,12;
184:4
owned (2)
169: 14;181 :24
owns (1)
181 :1
p
page (9)
76:2;77:22;78:2 l;
82: 14;83:8;89:23;
108:13;114:8;188:10
pages (2)
167:12;190:11
paid (2)
30:3;51 :2
panel (3)
196: 19;197:6;
198:6
panels (1)
196:23
paper (6)
47:8,10,21 ;52:7;
70:16, 18
papers (4)
4 7:7;49:23;52: 12;
70:15
paperwork (1)
outside - Police (16)

peculiar (1)
86:8
paragraph (3)
35:8
61:20;83:8;89:13
Pennsylvania (1)
paraphrased (1)
74:19
93:18
people (16)
paraphrasing (1)
22: 13,19,22,25;
93:13
51 : 10;55:17;59:20;
parentheses (I)
63: 19,24;65:2;69:5;
70:20
123: 19,21,23;
parenthetically (I)
124:17;198:2
51 :25
per (3)
part (27)
8:13;117:14;
162:13
5: 10; 11 :3;20:10,
20,25;26: I 2;46:4;
percent (1)
51 :4;65 :19;71:12;
59:4
75: 10;79:23,25;99:7, percentage (I)
68:13
18;115:11;124:21 ;
128:23;145:7;147:1; perform (9)
164:11;181:1 l,21;
97: 10; 122: 1,5,6,
186:23; 192:23,25;
10;124:5;135:19;
193:2
138:17;177:4
partial (1)
performed (8)
164:16
8:22;13:21; 16:25;
participate (2)
82: 17;122:20;
124:25;125:6
125:15;134:19;
participated (I)
136:21
125:11
performing (3)
participating (1)
134:8; 136:7;
125:4
139:25
particular (26)
performs (7)
10:22; 18:5; 19:20;
134:11;136:13,14;
21 :22;25:6;32:14, 15;
138:4,5,16,23
35 :10;39: 15;40:23;
perhaps (7)
47: 19;57: 1;64:23;
35:1;63:21 ;92:8;
68:16;75:11;77:12;
93:13;148:1 ;177:23;
90: 11;94:8,10; 103:4;
194:3
115:21;140:13;
period (9)
141:6;180: 13;
28:5;4 I :24;46:25;
183:14;194:19
52:20;57:2;68:3;
parts (33)
96:23;107:1;127:4
33 : 1;38:1,1,7,8,8;
person (22)
39:4,9;43:19;82: 17;
11 :24;18:20;
110:1;115:22;
21 : 14;33:21 ;46:10;
134:16;137:9;
52: l ;58: 11tI8;62:8;
142:21,24;143:3, 14;
73: 18;85: 16;87:25;
158:16;160:6,8;
94:8; I 07:2; 125:4;
166:20;174: 16, I 6;
126:5, 18; 128:9;
176:9; 181:3,8,13,17;
I 57: 16; 180:25;
194:2 I ,22,23;200:9
181 :24;197:24
passes (2)
personal (3)
102:4;118:17
15:9; 114:20;
past (2)
129:16
30:9;54:11
personnel (3)
patrol (3)
21 : 16;22:6;201 :7
7:22;9: 19;11:18
persons (1)
Paul (1)
96:15
74:7
perspective (1)
pawl (1)
132:7
142:10
Petersburg (1)
pay (1)
10:1
7:24
phase (1)
paying (3)
49:18
123:20,25; 125:18
Philippines (1)
20:19
phone (2)
33:12,17
photo (I)
167:25
photograph (S)
108:13;114:9,15;
170:19;185:17
photographed (I)
86:23
photographs (12)
86:25;87:12, 13;
97:24,24;98:24;
123 :6,8;167: 13, 14,
21;170: 12
photos (2)
87:19,21
phrase (2)
93:18;124:2
physical (3)
60:2,22;6 I :22
pick (1)
52:4
picked (2)
26:3;113: 10
picture (2)
I 15:1;119:14
pictures (2)
187:3;188:22
piece (6)
65:20;105:3;
107:9,12; 121: 14;
156:7
pieces (2)
18:22; 195 :2
pin (8)
101 :18,22,23;
102:2,3,4,7,17
Pinckney (11)
185:23; 186:3,9, 12,
22; 187:23;188:21 ;
190:14;200:23 ;
201 :4,15
pinholes (1)
40:2
pistol (8)
55:3;59:22;62:2,5,
I0,16;142:15; 159:1 I
pistols (2)
24:6;183:19
piston (4)
I 18:1,19,19;
137:12
Pittsburgh (1)
74:18
pivot (I)
40:2
PK (34)
53:9;69: I 7;83:22;
97: 14;98:3, 18, 18;
99:3,6;101 :5,6;
128:2; 141:5,6,1 O;
150:4;151:3,17;
1637
I59: IO; 161:7,18;

162:24; 163:25;
164:4;165:4; 171 :7;
198: 10,14, 18,20;
200:5,6,7,9
PKM (1)
170:20
place (14)
20:15;52:17;91 :4;
102:13,25;113:21;
114:5;115:23;121:9;
147:4,21;160:24;
166: IO; 189:23
placed (2)
24:18; 133:15
places (3)
69:13,15;73:9
plaintiff (I)
5:7
Plaintlfrs (3)
82:2,7,13
plastic (4)
107:8; 108:14;
112:16;177:3
plate (22)
107:13;112:16;
113:3;114:6,10;
122: I 5;140:2;
160: I 7;164:21;
165: 10,16,18,21;
177:3,3;178:19;
179:9; 189:2, 1 l;
191:11;193: 12; 195:6
platoon (I)
18:7
please (8)
4:7;6:3,14;114:8;
153:18;161 :6;167:8;
188:16
pliers (1)
148:8
plus (1)
178: 12
pm (2)
81:20;156:24
point (26)
18:25;23:24;83:6;
92:16;117: 18;
120: I 0;127:10;
136: 18;145:5;
151: 16,18,19;
155:11;158:23;
I 66: 1, IO; 172:5;
183:7,19,21,24;
184:17;190:24;
I 97: 16,21 ;198:9
pointing (1)
111: 16
points (4)
107:20;144:19;
147:11;199:24
Police (31)
4: 13,18;5:17;7: 1I;
\lin-U-~ltipr It
RIF

8:1,23;9:20; 11: 13,
14, l 5,24;12:7,8,10,
20,24;14:5,10,16;
22:22;26:8,9,10,19;
28: 13,22;45: 16;
64:23,24;66:6;78:20
police-issue (I)
14:22
policy (4)
60:22,24,25;6 l :5
pop (I)
147:7
popular (2)
58:3;62:3
port (4)
118:17,17;120:5,
10
portable (1)
17:13
portion (22)
33:5;84:8; I 01: 14;
109:13;117:19;
118:12,17;138:1 l;
144:7,8;151 :13;
157:22;158:3;
163:25; 164:4; 165:4,
9,16,20;166:9;
171:18;177:17
position (19)
9: I 0, I 5;13:23;
16:20;22: 19;51 :9;
88:20; lO 1: 14,20;
102:6;141 :21;156:4,
10,10,11;165:8;
167:5; 193:8; 196:9
positioned (1)
101:25
positive (2)
77:7; 173:25
possessed (2)
78: 15; 169:8
possession (1)
58:10
possible (S)
36:22; 116:9, l 2;
145:20;147:17
possibly (1)
127:3
pounds (4)
116:19;117: 14;
121: 15,19
practical (1)
193:13
practice (4)
30:6;110:20,24;
111: l
Precision (2)
69:12;70:4
present (16)
75:8;80: 13;
101 : 18;106:15;
I l 1:3;123:16,21;
125:17;141 :12;
'lin-l -~L ripN
151: 18,20; 158:9;

168:8,21; 197:7' 19
presentation (2)
75:7;77:1 l
presented (7)
76:4;95:24;96:15,
16; 194:20; 197:8,8
presenting (1)
197:14
presently (l)
40:11
president (1)
58:4
press (3)
143:8,10,11
pressing (1)
120:12
pressure (9)
104:22,25;116:14,
17;117:13;118:12,
22,25;119:12
pressures (3)
100:4; 117:5,8
presumably (l)
119:19
presume (4)
44:25;92:8;
I00:17;145:5
presumption (1)
6:14
Pretty (S)
10: 11 ;63:20;
146: 15,21 ; 147:23
prevent (4)
82:20;83:21,25;
154:18
prevented (1)
84:1
prevents (1)
84:4
previous (5)
9: 18,20;98: 17, I 8;
99:2
previously (1)
140:18
primarily (10)
12:21 ;33:3;36:24;
37:5;47:5;49: 1,3;
69: 16;70:5;85:7
primary (9)
I 1: I 9;25:5;46:9;
71 : 12; 141:9;144: 13;
150: 18; 152:24;
154:16
primer (1)
101:21
principle (1)
101:9
prior (11)
I 1:2;13:17;14:11;
15:22;17:5; 18: I;
20:24;25:25;40: 19;
42:21; 197:9
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
prisoner (1)
20:6
prisoners (7)
20:2,3,4,5,7;21: 1,2
private (I)
169:3
probably (15)
15:15;25:8;40:10;
42:11;45:11;59:4;
61:5;68:14;96:12;
119:15;135:6;143:2,
21;144:23;148:8
problem (l)
145:24
procedure (2)
109:4;196:20
procedures (3)
50:8,9; 109:2
proceeding (l)
75:3
process (24)
36:11;39:19;
45: 10;48:8;54:5;
81:23;84:20;85:1;
87:5;90:11;91 :3;
95:22;96:3;99:8;
125: I7;128:23,23;
145:8,9;166:1,11;
168:13, 18; 187:25
processes (1)
53:25
produced (6)
54: 11;96:1;
129:25;172:7,19;
186:21
producing (2)
35:19;54:10
product (3)
42: 17;54:4,6
profession (1)
43:22
professional (9)
28:9,10;29:4,15,
16,21;30:4;124:2;
148:1
profit (2)
42:2,2
Program (1)
186:12
prohibited (1)
169:14
projectile (1)
83:13
projects (1)
189:1
pronounced (l)
70:24
pronouns (1)
130:25
propelled (1)
I03:1
properly (3)
101:11;119:1;
146:16
property (1)
11: I
protected (l)
183:9
prot0<:ol (1)
34:3
protrude (1)
101:19
protrudes (1)
101 :22
provide (7)
31: 12;48: 1;73:3,
25;126:23;141 :18;
167:1
provided (3)
64:3;126:3;169:25
provides (4)
138:12;140:4,5;
166:25
pry (1)
144:20
public (5)
33: I 3;64:20,22;
66:3;188:1
pull (7)
92:9;101 :13;
102:14;195:11,15;
196:10,15
pulling (1)
116:4
pulls (1)
92:11
purchased (1)
41 :4
purchasing (1)
41:1
purple (2)
90:22,23
purpose (15)
21:20;67:3;86:18;
88:10;111:12;
113:19;122:23;
129:10,12,18,23;
130:7; 131 :6,16,23
purposes (I)
37:6
pushed (1)
108:9
pushes (1)
195:19
pushing (1)
196:7
put (20)
38: 10;47:21;54: 1;
59:21 ;61 :7;67:17;
85:11;89:21;96:1;
102:13; I08:2 I;
114:5; 116: 1;119:14;
131 :9;142:25;147:7;
159:11;195:2;200:16
1638
Q
qualification (l)
29:22
qualified (1)
81:13
qualify (2)
16:21,25
quantity (1)
120:2
quarter (1)
46:1
quick (2)
33 :15;55:14
quickly (1)
83:2
quite (8)
15:24;26: 14;28:7;
39:24;4I :7;48:11;
50:17;158:22
quiz (1)
34:16
quote (2)
83:12;93:14
quoted (1)
93:19
quotes (1)
93:19
R
radio (1)
27:20
rail (42)
144:3 ,5,6,8,14,23;
146: 1,6,25; 147:8, 14,
18,21; 148:6,10;
149: 1,6, l 7; 152:4,6,
13, I 6; I 53 :2,25;
I 54:8,21 ,25; I 55:4,8,
13;156:8; 157:4,14;
160:4; 161 :15,21,23;
163:1 ,5,12;170:23;
199:21
rails (2)
141: I 3;163: 18
rail's (1)
171:3
raise (1)
162:18
raised (2)
144:7,8
random (1)
52:4
range (7)
16:20;50:8,9,9,15;
103:24;114:21
rank (4)
15:19,25;16:3;
69:2
rather (S)
6:6;21 :13;137:20;
(17) police-Issue - rather
RIF
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
146:7;154:25
read (9)
7:20;82:22;92: 19,
23; I 88:8;189:4,6,24;
191:3
reading (1)
190:19
ready (1)
194:7
real (2)
55:14;62:3
realize (2)
185:18;189:5
really (13)
12:17;16:16;
35:14;36:15,17;
4 I :21;67:23;84: 10;
125:18;131 :19;
132:15; 149: 10;165:3
realm (1)
69:16
rear (24)
83:17;107:11;
108:2,5,10, 19;111:4;
114:11;119:18;
142:4,7;159:4,6;
161:3; 164:9,11,16;
168:12; I 71: 17;
177:2;179:8; 193:23;
195:2; 196:15
reason (10)
40:23;68: 16;
82:24;84:2 I ,24;
88: 13;114:19;
124: 19; 160:24; I 87:7
reasons (2)
55:17;124:12
reassemble (2)
47:15;48:24
recalculated (1)
183:24
recall (14)
24:3;74: I 9;76:9;
77:4,5;80:6;93: I;
95:20; 103 :21,25;
104:1;108:22;117:1;
118:5
receive (3)
94:3; 124:10;
141 :21
received (19)
38:24;45:6;49: 19;
86:9,11 ,16,22;88:7;
89:21 ;90:4,8,8;91 :9;
97:12;103 :11 ,19;
104:3,6; 105:14
receiver (73)
33:4;58:7;83:12;
84:2;98:19,19,21;
99:3,7;101:5,5;
107:11 ; 120:12;
127:20,25;128:5,l l,
15,17;129: 1,7; 130:5;
re11d - r estate ( 18)
United Slates of America v.

131 :14;134:7,7;
records (2)
138:6,9,11 ;139:3,14;
41 :24,25
141 :5,7,10,12;144:2, redirected (2)
4,10,11;146:4,9;
118:18;119:7
149:6, 10,23;150:2,3, refer (2)
187: 10;200:2
5,6,19,24; 151 :3,14,
reference (2)
24; 153:1;155:8;
156:6, l 8;158: 10;
47:12;97:15
referred (3)
162:24;163:25;
164:4, 17,22;165:4,
172:3; 173: 10;
I 0,19;166:9; 168:6, 7,
187:8
l 1,14;171:18;
referring (9)
199: 16,23
18: I 7;20:6;87:13;
89:14;91 :6;I71 :19;
receivers (2)
172:22;179:19;
156: 12; 169: 18
recently (2)
182:25
refers (2)
57:5;183:4
recess (4)
8:6;89: 14
51: 17;8l:19;
regard (3)
156:23;194:8
21: 15;37:8;50:18
regarding (4)
reciprocate (1)
196:12
4:15;79:12; 186:4;
201:19
recite (1)
regardless (3)
189:8
recognition (1)
96:5; 173:1; 187:4
regiment (12)
25:19
18:6,8;19:9,10,J I;
recognize (1)
20: 11,12,17, 18;23:6,
158:8
recognized ( 1)
7,12
regimental (1)
126:21
18:15
recoil (40)
83: 18,20;97:20;
regiments (3)
17:20,22,23
102:12;105:18;
register (6)
I 07:16; I08: 1,2,4,9,
179: 15,22; 180:8,
18;112:18;113:20;
116:4,14,18,25;
14,16,18
117:7,18,20,22;
registered (7)
180:23,24; 181 :11,
118:13; 120:1;
127: 16,20; 136: 1,3,
17,J 9,21,23
18; 137:1,10,13;
registration (S)
169:4,6,7,11;
140:2,3,5;142:19;
I 59:7; 193:3,23;
187:20
registrations (1)
195:18,19
recoiling(S)
187:17
regs (I)
136:8,22,23; I 37:6,
27:24
24
recoils (1)
regular (2)
7:22;13:19
136:5
recollection (1)
reinstall (1)
147: 18
111:8
recommend (2)
reject (1)
I 10:12,15
188:25
reconstructionist (I)
related (1)
28:13
42:5
reconstructionlsts (I) relaxed (1)
27:24
30:2
reconstructionlst's (3) release (4)
28: 18, l 9;29:20
195:11,17; 196:6,
record (10)
15
relics (1)
5:25;8l:1 8;94: 15;
100:10, 12, 14, 15;
41:20
remaining (I)
120:15; 129: 13;
187:21
17:23
remember (11)
5:22;29: l 3;64:8;
69:9;76:5;78:4;
117:12;126:5;
157:21; 182:9; 188:22
Remington (2)
15:1 ,4
removal (4)
157:3;165:9,15;
174:16
remove (14)
134:2;140:17;
153:3,6,14;154:24;
155:4; 156:5,8, 11 ;
I 57:13,19;165: I 7;
199:20
removed (6)
148: 11;151:14,16;
152: l 6;156: 19; 172: 1
removes (1)
174:16
removing (S)
82:19;148:9;
155:8; 165: 13,20
render (I)
200: 12
renewal (1)
56:20
repair (4)
25:7; 194:21,22,23
repeat (2)
131:7;162:7
repeatable (1)
123:1
repea ted (2)
113:25;122:18
repeating (1)
122:23
rephrase (4)
122:6; 182:20;
184:8;192:7
repla ce (3)
23:21 ;148:1 I;
177:16
replaced (1)
177:3
replacement (2)
194:21,22
Replaces (1)
179:9
replied (1)
188:21
report (6)
47:21;89:5;95:1;
97:25;123 :7;185: 1
reported (1)
94:22
reporter (1)
5:20
reports (3)
7:21;35:20;48: 1
represent (7)
53:3;167:15;
American Courl Reporting Company, Inc.
1639
170: 14,21 ; 185: 16,

17,20
representation (1)
167: 18
representative (1)
53:22
representing (4)
82:6;167:13;
170:11 ,19
reproduce (4)
85:9,13,17, 18
request (4)
71 :10;73: 14;93:7;
94:8
requests (2)
30:19;93:22
require (6)
37:10;60:22;
147: 14;169:4,6,7
required (13)
25: l 8;35:20;45: 1,
8;47:6,8;48:1;50:7,9,
22; 141: IO; 150:18;
169:11
requirement (1)
44:3
requirements (3)
26:15;41: 11;50:21
requires (1)
177:6
research (2)
47: 11 ;48:22
reserve (2)
17:19;24:18
residence (1)
74:16
resources (1)
47:16
respect (13)
11:12;13:3;31 :9;
54: I ;70:8;88: 19;
90:18,21 ; 117:7;
137:13,15; 183:18;
185:4
respond (I)
93:25
responded ( 1)
189: 18
response (11)
61 :13;82:2,7,l 1,
21,22,25;84: 12, 15;
187:22; I 89: I0
responses (2)
81:24;165:8
responsibilities (I)
16:23
responsible (3)
7:23;8:2 l ;34:6
rest (4)
6:19;35:2;48:9;
165:17
restate (3)
131: 18; 153: 18;
\lin-L-~nipt H.
RIF

Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
I
156:1
restatement (1)
155:22
reslore (1)
106:7
rests (1)
102:1
result (10)
84:13;114:2;
132:7;133:4,7,9;
149:10;15J:21;
172:23; 191: 13
results (2)
35:19;95:24
retained (1)
97:20
retains (1)
140:1
retaliation (1)
190:16
return (1)
88:18
re-use (1)
147:1 J
reverse (I)
16:J J
reversed (1)
J83:3
reviewed (1)
52:8
revolver (2)
14:24;55:2
reword (1)
11 :8
Rick (7)
50:6;7I:19;94: 13,
15;95:3,5,l J
rid (1)
23:20
rifle (11)
15:4; 16:21;62:1,5,
12, 13,15, 17;93:3;
130:15;132:10
rifleman (1)
18:J9
rlnes (1)
15:1
rig (1)
J88:2
Right (154)
6:8,J J,J7,23,25;
9:11;10:18;12:6;
13:5; 14:2; J5:25;
16: J; 17: I 0;19: J;
22:J J;25:25;27:J,14;
28:24;29: 13;30:8, J2,
23;3 J :5;32:5;33:6;
34:13,19;37:8;39:22,
25;41 :17,18;42:9,12,
18,J9,24;43:24;44:7,
18;45:25;46:3;47: J;
49: 16, 17;5 J:6;52:2,
23;55: JI ;56:9;58:3;
\1111-l
-~lriptQ.11
59:14,16;62:3;71 :21;
72: 15;74:21 ;76:9;
79:13,J6;80:11;
82: J3, 14;83:5;85:20;
87:21 ;89:9,I5,25;
90:7;93: 14;95: 18;
I 02:20;103:6; 105:8,
10,11,22;106:3,5;
110:14;J J J:J0,2J,
21;112:2,11,14;
J13:10;J 16:J,3;
117:12;118:15;
119:20,22;120:4;
122:20;125:19,24;
126: 1; I 33:21; 134:2;
135:9; 136: I 2; 139:7,
J5;144:4;145:2,7,l I ,
J5;J47:15;149:1;
150: 1; 151:4;152:13,
17; 153: 17,23;154:4;
156:21;157:23;
158:4; 159: 15, 19;
161:2,24;163:2,5,20;
166:4; 168: 12,16,19;
l 72:5;173:2,6,16;
174:24;175 :21;
176:24; 177: 18;
J78:25;181 :9;
J84:J2;J88:15;
190:25;J95:13,14;
196:5; J97:25; 198:5,
12;199:8
rights (1)
4:21
rigid (I)
J60:25
rigidity (I)
161:3
rise (1)
39:24
rivet (2)
143:9;147:11
rlveled (2)
147:4,5
rivets (9)
143: 1,2,6, JO;
147:7, JO,l 7;J48: JO,
12
road (1)
7:22
role (4)
21:3;22:18,21;
73:J
room (S)
6: J9;35:7; I 03:22;
123:20,24
ropes (1)
46:11
rotates (1)
J02:5
rotating (1)
9J:14
roughly (1)
107:10
round (S)
107: 16,23,24;
109:17;J 12:17
rounds (7)
108:21;109:2J;
J 12:15;114:1,3;
122:13,14
Royal (3)
23:7,7;24:5
RPO's (1)
69:17
rule (1)
68:12
rules (2)
145:17,23
runaway (1)
110:9
running (2)
83:8; 112: 10
runs (1)
41:19
Saudi (1)
20:23
Savage (23)
80: 10;87:2,8;88:1,
11;89:15, 18,21;
92:22;99: 1O;103:23;
126:3,14,16,23;
127: J4; 128:8;186:5;
187:J,8,9,9;J91 :6
Savage's (S)
90:24;93: J4;
95: l 8;131:20;132:2
SAW(S)
2J:21;53:11;
100:2,17;114:20
saying (34)
6:6;12:22;41 :18;
46:5;62:23;85: 12,17;
120:2;122:17;128:7,
20;130:3,7;145:19,
22; 146: 14; 150:9, 12,
23;153:13;J61 :2;
168:21;171 :21;
172:9, 11,14, 17;
174: 1,21; 176: 14, 17;
safe (7)
185:2; J90:4; 198:2
SBS (1)
97: 17;99:2 J;
79:4
I 00: J8,22; 1 J2:7, 10;
125:3
scenarios (1)
safety (4)
192:9
school (9)
50:10;110:15;
21 :22;26:2,I2;
l 12:4;160:18
sake (4)
27:2,8, I 0, I 0;38:23;
I 40:25; 149:20;
69:10
schools (1)
162:20;174:8
same (53)
50:25
science (1)
JO:l 1;13:2J;
21 :15;26: J3;3 I :6;
26:4
35:3;56:7;57: J5;
scope (1)
47:J9
58:1;67:8;70: IO;
77:24;85: 18;86:9;
screw (1)
87:16;91 :22,23;
J43: 12
98:20;99:6, I J; 102:7; scribe (3)
103:11,17;1 05:13;
166:3,6,8
sear (27)
J 13:19;J22:16;
J27: 15; J30:9;
127:25; 128:4;
J3 J: I 8;136:J5;
I55:7;J72:3;173:9,
J37:5;155:10;
20; J74:25;175:3,9,
23; J 76: J5, 18; I 77:4;
157:J7;158:20;
159: 18,2J;160:7;
J78:6,7,1J,12;J79:4,
8, l 5,24;J 80:9, J0,24;
166:14,17,20;
167: J8; J73:8; 174:4;
J81 :l ,18;200: 16
I 77:5; 18J:13,23,24; search (10)
J91 :1 J,J2;192:2;
72: J6,18,20;73:2.
J4,16,21 ;74:J J,J4, J4
J93 :21;195:25;
sears (4)
20J :l9
sample (7)
175: 18;J76:2,16,
60:22;61 :22;63:5,
19
9;67: J ;89:24;93:8
Second (18)
samples (2)
20: 11 ;23:6;30:20;
47:J3;60:2
31 :17;100:11;
San (1)
I 14:J7;122:2,l 1,18,
76:3
21.24; 150:9; 177:8,
1640
14;178:18;179:7;
182:24;J93:J 1
secondary (2)
25:15;34:6
secret (1)
19:6
secreted (1)
67:6
section (7)
64:3;69:12;70:4;
72:16;74:23; 164:20,
21
secure (2)
73:24;113:9
security (2)
19:4;66:J8
seeing (3)
103:21; 104: 1;
188:22
seems (3)
154: 13; 160:25,25
seized (1)
J06:19
select (2)
36:12;109:J J
selection (1)
36:JJ
self-training (1)
39:J8
sell (3)
4J :5;169:19;
175:15
selllng (1)
40:24
sells (1)
J80:7
semi-aulo (13)
14:25;84:2;98: 18,
I 9;J09:13;J 56:J 7;
165:19;171:12;
174:23;J75:4;176:3,
4;180: J5
Semi-automatic (24)
72:9;80:25;98 :5,8,
9;99:3,J5;141:6,8;
144:1,3;149:23;
I 50:2,2,5,24; 15 J :3;
I 53: J, J2;J59:15,23;
J72:23; J74:3; 198: J 5
semi-autos (1)
175:12
seminar (1)
I
29:6
send (4)
55: 16;58:2;62:20;
127:6
senior (3)
27:5,7;46:J8
sent (11)
20:2 I ,23;50:24;
57:2J ;58:5;65:2;
80: I6;89: I8;92:22;
127:4,8
(19) restatement - sent
RIF

One Historic Arms Model S4RCCS, etc:.
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
sentence (2)
61:20;84:16
sentences (1)
83:10
separate (3)
55: 19; 102:8; 103:1
separated (1)
74:22
separation (1)
24:13
September (1)
52:18
sequence (6)
108:1;111 :24;
I 12:5;113:25;
195:23;196:13
Sergeant (2)
15:20;16:1
serial (8)
167:23,24,25;
168:1;178:19,21;
179:1,10
serialized (2)
178:17,18
series (S)
14:25; 15: 1;23:19;
47:7;69: 18
serve (1)
21:4
serves (I)
113:21
service (7)
15:21; 19:5;20: l O;
23:2,3,4;38:4
set (I)
148:8
sets (1)
122:14
setting (1)
190:15
setup (1)
143:10
seven (4)
15:14;45:11;
46:20;74:4
several (8)
7: 13; 10:21;14:13;
30: 15;58:5;87: 16;
123:6;198:20
sexual (I)
12:4
Shnlble (4)
70:21,22,24;71 :5
S-h-a-i-b-1-e (I)
70:23
sham (3)
130:8;131:15;
132:19
shape (I)
164:13
share (2)
92:9,11
shared (I)
sentence - Speclal (20)
127:10
sharp (1)
I 13:2
sheared (1)
105:2
sheet (4)
86:23,25;87: I 6;
107:9
shell (9)
84:17;116:5,6;
119:17;121:3,7;
145:11;146:25;147:1
sherlfrs (3)
12:8,24;64:25
Shield (1)
20:20
shift (1)
112:1
shipment (1)
86:20
shipped (1)
87:4
shipping (4)
86: 19;87: l ,5;88: 1
shoot (6)
22:20,23;59:22;
65: 17;70: 1; 152: 14
shooters (1)
16:25
shooting (I)
15:14
shop (4)
34:7,7;35:6;38:23
short (I)
156:22
short-barreled (6)
62: I ;78: l 3;79:4;
93:3; 130: 15; 132: I 0
short-term (1)
14:6
shot (4)
109:5,7,10,12
shotgun (2)
78:14;79:5
shotguns (2)
15:1;62:7
shots (2)
109:6,8
shoulder (3)
62:9;93:4,9
show (12)
32:19;46: 1O;
48:20;54:7, I I ,14, 17;
108: 12,14; 167: 17;
170:23;171:9
showed (3)
50: 11; 182:23,24
showing (11)
48:8;53:23;87: 11;
89:2;149:19;167:1 l;
170: 10,12, l 8;
185:15;190:10
shown (S)
48: 16,23;50:9;
187:3;200:19
shows (2)
56:23; 189: 13
side (24)
13:24;113:2,16,17;
114:12;119:15,20;
121:2;141 : 13;144:5,
14; 152:4, 16; 153:25;
I 54:8,21;170:23;
171:4;176:20;
177:21; 178:4; 179:5;
195:14;199:21
sides (1)
164:14
SIG (3)
24:6;55:6;56: 10
sign (1)
83:11
signature (I)
89:8
signed (3)
50:11;186:8,11
slgnlncance (I)
87:18
significant (I)
194:3
Sil (1)
79:9
silencer (8)
34:2;36:12, 17,20;
37:20;39: l ,9;79:9
silencers (3)
36:5,8,10
silver (2)
105:8; 119:2
similar (14)
24:7;61: 15;69:23;
sistered (3)
23:6,13;24:5
sits (1)
103:10
sitting (3)
68:10;105:22;
106:3
situation (1)
95:4
six (4)
9:14;16:21 ;27:25;
46:20
size (S)
8:9,14;107:10;
181:13,24
skills (3)
143:18;148:14;
157:15
SKS (2)
80:24,25
slide (24)
172:4;176:8,11,20;
I 77:2,7, 17,21,22;
178: 1,4,7, 12;179: 1,5,
8, 16,25; 180: 10, 19,
23,24; 181: 1,25
slides (3)
176:7,14,17
slight (I)
103:14
slightly (3)
107:10,12; 196:1
slot (6)
101:20;144:23;
154:21;160:4; 176:4,
20
slots (2)
38:9;155 :7
small (4)
134:10,11;1~5:3;
21 :8;69: IO;
157:2; 163:24; 164:2;
103:17;135:24
165:3;171 :7;185:20;
SMATS (I)
191:13,25
similarities (1)
69:11
smiley (2)
135:4
189:7,9
slmple(4)
Smith (6)
I 0:25;39:6; 143:3;
14:23,24,24;55:2,
154:25
simpler (2)
2;56:2
sniper (4)
146:2;147:20
15:3,3,4;36: 13
simplest (I)
software (1)
144:17
simplify (1)
35:18
sold (4)
54:13
41:23;168:24;
simply (S)
169:1,22
83:24;88:23;
solder (1)
I 13:5;139:22;171 :2
SIMS (S)
105:8
soldering (I)
34:4;35:8,21,22;
36:15
119:2
single (9)
solidly (1)
65 : l 8;86:25;
116: 13
l 05:3; 109:5,7'10, 12, Somalis (I)
13,16
23:25
1641
somebody (7)
35:21;44:3;61 :I I;
62:24;78:11;91:10;
123:3
somehow (2)
149: 1; 171 :22
someone (14)
39: 12;58: I, 12,13;
63: I 7;67:5;90:9;
110:10;124:5;
126:21 ;149:8;172:8;
180:21;188:1
sometime (S)
45: 13;46: 1;90:5;
92:14;187:24
Sometimes (2)
33:3;57:22
somewhat (ID)
15:4;4l :15;44:9;
79: 18; 109:22; 124:9;
138: 14; 146:7,15;
194:12
Somewhere (3)
26:3;31:21;106:18
soon (I)
45:9
sorry (17)
5:7;3 l :2,4;32:22;
35: 10;41: 19;45:24;
49: l 6;86:4; 122:4;
159: I; 162:7; 167:24;
176:23; 186:8;
190: 18; 193:1
sort (3)
39:21; 164: 14;
190:24
SOT's (1)
169: 15
sound (4)
23:9;35:23;36:2,
25
sounded (3)
46:4;142:20;
173:23
sounds (13)
10:14;12:18;
16: 16; 17:7; 18:23;
21: I 2;25:5;38: 13;
47:23,24;48:2;62:22,
24
source (2)
191:19,21
Soviet (I)
69:16
spaced (1)
83:10
speak (2)
68:9;183:12
speaking (6)
36:14, 19;43:14;
59:24;63:23; 127:17
Special (6)
25:2,10,12,14;
\lin-L-'i<:ript II'
RIF
.
27:10;28:3
specialist ( 1)
25:1
specialization (1)
11:23
specialized (1)
16:15
specializing (1)
11 :9
specific (5)
35:4,5;61:18;
62:19;94:1
specifically ( 6)
32: I0,25;92:22;
95:22; 143:8,9
specifics (I)
183:14
speculation (3)
104:14;130:1 I;
180:2
Spencer (4)
94: 14, J9;95:25;
125:9
Spencer's (I)
89:8
spend (5)
19:16,17;43:8;
44:11;68:1 I
spent (2)
20:12;97:6
spread (1)
120:8
spring (9)
97:20;102:13;
105: 18; 108:2;
142: 19; 193:3;
195:18,19;196:7
Springs (3)
10:3; 13: 18,22
springy (1)
161: 1
squad (1)
22:8
square (1)
117:14
St (1)
74:7
stages (2)
54:4;58:5
stamped (I)
87:16
stand (I)
189:8
standalone (I)
178:11
standard (3)
14:22;47:25;
135:15
standing (I)
193:24
start (6)
19: 13;44:22;83:5;
84:14,15;1'68:14
i\l in -l-"-l r ipt ''
started (8)
I 0:25;44:21 ;45:4,
l 2, 19,21 ;51 :22;84:2
starting (1)
157:8
starts (1)
83: 10
state (51)
4:7,13;5:17;7:11;
8: 1,23;9: 19,20;
11:13,14,15,19,24;
12:7, l 0,13;14:4,10,
16; I 5:6;22:22;26:8,
9,10;28:13,14,21;
31: 13;32: 12;41 :8;
45: 16;61:20;64:19;
72: 17,20;75:17,20,
23,24,25;76:3,l 7,24;
77:2,9,20;78:3,6;
l 5I ;6;166:6; 192: 11
stated (2)
129: 18,20
statement (2)
83:15,24
statements (1)
18:24
States (3)
14: 11;36:11;68:21
station (1)
16: 14
stationed (3)
8:8;20:18;3 l :22
stations (1)
14:13
status (2)
24:19;174:10
stay (3)
19:20;74: l; 196: i 0
stayed (I)
19:21
steel (3)
38:8;54:3;148:18
Stens (3)
37:20,24;38:15
step (7)
42:20;49:13,13;
82: 16,16; I 09:1;
124:7
stepped (3)
123:24;124: 17;
125:10
steps (11)
42:16;54:5;83:1 l,
21,25;84: 11 ;85:22;
97:9,21;166:1,15
still (20)
23: 19;27:13;
46: I 7;50:8;55:23;
62:22;87:3; I 02:6;
109:22;114:23;
146: 19;152:5,19;
153:8;154:6,23;
155:7;165:19;
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
179: 13;200:14
stock (4)
62:9,13;142:13;
159:12
stoop (I)
188:25
stop (8)
30:20;3 l: l 7;68:7;
107:18;110:6,24;
111 :2,24
stopping (2)
110:8; 112:9
stops (1)
102:16
straight (6)
58: 16; 121 : 15,18,
21,22,24
straightforward (1)
144:17
stretch (1)
6:20
strike (6)
71 :4;101:21;
102:8;114:6;145:4;
174:20
striker (3)
102:8; 103: I, l
stripping (1)
22:4
strong (1)
110:11
struck (2)
102:25;103:2
stuck (1)
146:3
students (l)
55:20
stuIT (4)
13:24;15:9;22:10;
28:8
style (I)
69:16
submission (5)
61 :22;98:l8;99:2,
5;197:9
submit (1)
31: 11
submits (4)
189:20; 190:3,23;
191:7
submitted (9)
30: I 6, l 8;60:22;
67: I ;89:24;92:20;
94:9; 126:6; 187:4
substance (3)
81:5;183:8;185:3
substa n ti al (2)
13:4;86:21
substantially (5)
l 8:2;25:3;56:25;
151:7;173:8
subterfuge (3)
130:8;131: 15;
132:19
successive (1)
96:18
sufficient (6)
85:16;101:19;
151:23;153:15;
155:9; l 58:24
sufficiently (I)
127:24
suggested (1)
149:5
suggestion (I)
185:7
suggestions (I)
185:6
suggests (I)
62:24
suit (1)
190:24
summarize (1)
155:16
summary (1)
80:5
summer(2)
24:21;27:7
supervised (1)
51:14
supervising (1)
9:7
supervision (3)
46:7,8;51 :13
supervisor (2)
95 :10,11
supervisors (1)
94:18
supervisory (I)
13:23
supplies (I)
115:17
support (2)
17:16;111:4
supported (I)
83:19
suppose (I)
124:15
supposed (I)
41:25
suppression (1)
37:1
sure (30)
18: I ;20:2;35: 15,
19;47:2;57:21;63:8;
64:7;66:9;74:6;
76:11;77:4;84:7;
93:6;98:22; I 04:2;
113:15;131:1,22;
138:24; 153:20;
162:20; 176: 13;
182:2,18,21;186:16;
188:9; 192:8; 199: I
surface (2)
111:9;172:1
surprise (1)
1642
170:4
surrounding (2)
65:1;70:8
suspect (1)
191:22
sworn (2)
4:3;162:12
system (11)
17: 12,12, 14;32:9;
34:3;35: I 7 ,24;36:2,
15;83:20;142:6
systems (9)
18:10,11,13,14,15;
23: 17;36: 13,22;
83:18
T
table (3)
JOO: 16; I 05:22;
113:10
tactics (4)
21:9,13,25;69:10
tail (1)
189:20
talk (6)
30:21 ;42:9;59:7;
60:7;95:4; 150:8
talked (5)
148:24; 177:20;
179:7;194:13,14
talking (38)
6: I ;20:3;22:9;
29:3,7;30:22;3 I :25;
32:24,25;44: I, 1,8;
66: 13,24;67:2;73:8,
J0,11;103:20;
108:17;119:5,12,25;
122:7; 131:2;138:21,
22;143:23,24;
144:25; 145: I; 146:9;
148:20;152:9;157:1;
176:23; 177:8; 178:3
talks (1)
50:19
tape (7)
108:7,10,14,18;
112:16,18;113:4
tapping (1)
137:11
target (1)
66:23
tasked (8)
11:24;16:24; 18:9;
23:5;49:22;66: 17;
68:5;73:20
taught (2)
21:14;31:15
tax (2)
12:15; 183:9
teach (1)
66:2
teaching (3)
(21) specialist - teaching
RIF
..
Unlted States of America v.
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
22:20,22;44: 17
team (1)
15:3
tech (1)
200:6
technical (2)
49:11 ; 199:13
technician (9)
16:14;27:18;
87:23;90:9,10, 12;
91:5,11;92:13
teletype (3)
25:7,9;27 :20
tells (1)
85:8
temporary (I)
14:6
Ten (3)
7: 17;121: 15,19
tend (1)
111 :8
Tennessee (1)
80:21
tens (1)
117:13
tension (5)
115:13, 14,16,18,
22
tents (1)
19:21
tenure (1)
14:4
term (1)
59:8
termed (1)
I 10:8
terminology (1)
8:2
terms (8)
43:7; 124:9; 133:7;
138:4,5; 160:17;
174: 1O;183: 13
test (21)
16: I 4;48: 13 ;90:2;
95:23;97:21,25;
107:15;108:15;
112: 14; 113:25;
122:2, 11,18,21,24;
123:17; 124:5,7;
125:5, 15; 193: 10
test-firing (I)
194:25
testified (7)
4:3;34:17;79:12;
80:2, IO; 131 :22;
197:23
testifies (2)
190:16,21
testify (I)
139:10
testifying (2)
78:25;191 :6
testimony (9)
team - Two (22)
80:6, 13;8 l :6;

121:5; 155:20,22,25;
169: 19;200:25
testing ( 11)
23:18;34:2,3;
36: 10,21,22;42: 1O;
108:22; I 09:2; 122: 1;
123: 11
tests (I)
122:7
theft (1)
10:25
thick (1)
152:5
thickened (1)
153:2
thicker (1)
113:6
thinking (1)
95:8
third (1)
14:1
third-duty (I)
25:16
third-level (1)
25 :16
though (9)
21 :5;50:7;97:2;
113:3; 156:15;
161 :22;186:25;
190: 16,25
thought (6)
48:5;53; 11 ;88:6;
110:10;125:23;
166:22
thousand (5)
27:25;43:5, 16;
44:9;46:24
T housands (4)
43:1,3,4;117:13
thread (1)
190:12
threaded (4)
141 :20;167:4;
193:7;199:23
three (24)
14:5; 17: 19,20;
19: 18;24: 16;25:24;
32:2;37:23 ;38: l 5;
39:25;55:16;61 :5;
77: l 9;93:2,21 ;94: l;
96:12; 108:23;
112: 15;114:1,3;
122: 13,14; 167: 12
three-position (1)
118:4
throughout (1)
106:25
thrown (2)
51 :8;193:23
throws (1)
196:8
tie (S)
114: 14,25;115:5,
21 ;193:22
ties (20)
l 07:8,8, 13, 17;
108:3,4,7,10, 14,19;
112:16,19,25;113:6,
6,20;114:12,22;
189:2,11
tighten (1)
115:13
times (8)
17:22,25;51 :13;
57:8;68:5;87: 16;
126:17;151: 11
title (6)
17:6;27: 19;64: 13;
69:2;200: 16, 17
tilled (1)
41 : 12
today (2)
44:20;103:10
together (10)
34:24;38:10;
41:20;95:3;116:1;
119:14;142:25;
178: 18; 180:20;
181:17
told (4)
77:10;88:23;
182:10,11
tons (2)
68:4,9
took (11)
20:24;27: I 5;
51:20;52: 17;91 :4;
95:20;96: 13;97:21 ;
107:8;114:15; 123:6
tools (11)
I 42:25; 143:3,5,8,
15,19;148:4,10,13;
157:16;166:20
top (9)
29: 12;76:9;83:9;
111 :9;11 2:2; 117: 12;
142:7,9;164:15
topics (1)
50:17
top-secret (1)
25 :12
total (2)
14:4;97:6
totally (I)
200:9
tour (6)
53 :20,23;55:8, I 3,
19,19
toured (1)
50:25
tours (2)
50:23;53:16
TOW(3)
17: 12,12;20:17
T-0-W (1)
17:12
towards (5)
28:1 ;41:11;65:15;
67:20;168:12
tracking (2)
70:17;71:6
traditional (I)
102:2
traffic (2)
28:15;75:19
trained (5)
18: 10;25:7;28: 12;
201:16,20
Training (45)
19: 14;21 :8,18,24;
22:2,7,24;23:4,16,
24;25:2, 15, I 6;26:16,
17;27:9;28:2,3,7;
29:1;31: 12,14, 19;
32:12;38:19,22,22;
39: 16, 17;45: 1,6, IO;
46:9,25;47:4;49:6,
18;51 :7,21 ;52:20;
68:20,25;69: 14,20,
21
transcribe (1)
6:10
transcript (1)
6:2
transfer (3)
24:12;120:13;
187:21
transferable (I)
192:18
transferred (3)
24: 19;168:24;
169:1
transpired (1)
88:19
Transportation (1)
66:18
travel (2)
67:23;73:20
traveled (I)
41 :7
tray (6)
101:14;112:2;
142:7,8,10;164:24
trial (1)
80:2
trials (2)
75:14,16
triangular (1)
164: 15
tried (1)
107:7
trigger ( 11)
139:23; 140:4;
142:15,16;151:17;
155:6; 159:3, 11 ;
178:24;193: 1,5
trip (1)
172:3
1643
tripod (1)
151 :18
trooper (12)
13:19;14:16;
75:21,24;76: I, 17,24;
77:2,9,20;78:3,6
troopers (1)
28:14
troops (1)
7:20
true (4)
16:17;53:1;110:4;
133: 16
truly (1)
187:2
trunnion (11)
142:4,4,5,7; 159:4,
4,6;164:9,12,24;
199:25
trunnions (1)
161 :3
try (8)
5:22;43:21;51:1 l,
22;54: 12;63: 1S;
131:7;161 :1 I
trying (9)
5:25;34:20;66: 13;
107:19; 110:18;
112:22; 113:15;
138:1;147:20
tube (I)
118:14
tubing (2)
38:8,9
turn (6)
33: 10;141 :24;
144:10; 152:1 I;
158:15,18
turnbuckle (18)
114:22,23;115:2,
I 0,12,12, 13, l 7 ,17;
l 16:4; 119:3,16;
120:3,22;121:2;
122: 15;191 :11 ;
193:12
turned (2)
42:1;154: 12
turns (I)
80:20
tutorial (1)
85:13
twist (3)
110:9,23;112:3
twisting (1)
111 :24
Two (51)
5:4,5;8:10,14,16,
25; 10:23;14:7;
19: 16;24:17;37:20,
22,23;38:15;42:1 l;
51 : 13;54: 19;55: 16;
74: l 5;78:2;79: 11 ;
92:15;96:12;109:11 ;
\1i11-l
-~tJ'ipf ~ I
RIF

I 2I :23 ;122:14;
126:16;136:16;
141 :9;144:13;
152:24; 153: 11,20,
24; 155:16;156:5,12;
157:5;162:16;
167: 12; 170: 11, 12;
176: 16, 19;178:14;
181 :10,12;182:1;
199: l ,2;200:21
type (50)
11 :25;29:25;
32: l 6;33 :23;37:23;
40:5;53: 12;58: 18;
83 :16,17,22;84:15;
93 : I0;97: l 4, I6;98:3,
18;99: 13; 101 :5,6;
l 17:22;141:5,7,10;
143:11 ;150:4;151 :3,
17; 154: 19; 161 :7,18;
177:4,8,11 ,14,14,16,
20; 178:3,9,10,18,19;
179:3,4,7, 10;191 :18;
198:10,14
types (13)
I 1:12;12:4;13:4;
14: 19;25 :19;66:20;
75: l 8;85:6;138:18;
159:12;176:16,19;
198:20
u
ugly (1)
146:23
ullimately (I)
125:16
under (16)
38:3;46:7;51 : 12;
57:19;62:10,I I;
65: 10,16;76: 19,20;
77:6;89:8;107: 13;
115:21;175:13;
178:24
understood (1)
6:15
unfortunately (I)
194:1 I
unincorporated (1)
12:20
unique (3)
57: 10;59: 18; 124:9
unU (11)
8:7;1 l :8;16:24;
19:20;2 l :8;23:8;
24:4,4;25: 15;69:10;
116:20
United (3)
14: 11;36:10;68:21
units (2)
8:1;18:16
unit's (1)
16:22
:\lin-l -~nipt.u
university (I)
26:17
unknown (2)
120:2;128:8
unless (6)
53:8;72:14;83: 13;
142: 15; 148:9;169:8
Unlicensed (1)
59:13
unloaded (1)
100:17
unmodined (10)
57: I6;83:22;84:4;
152:2; 161: 17,25;
163:10,13,I 5;191 :18
unofficial (1)
124:21
unquote (1)
83:12
unregistered (2)
131 :23;132:8
unsare (3)
110:20,22; I 11 : 17
untrue (1)
83:15
unusual (1)
124:6
up (41)
10:23;11 :2,3,12;
13: I 2;22:2 I ;23 :5;
26:3 ;34:7,8,9;35 :5,6,
16;39: 13;56: 19,24;
60:1;62:4;70:14;
73: 15;74: 18;90: 17;
91 :19;92:4;1 13:10;
114:11 ,20;115:13;
l 17:3,17;119:20,22;
121:2;143:17;154:3;
I 61 :16; I62:20;
187:2; 190: 15; 194:7
update (1)
77:3
upon (S)
26: l 8;56:25;
117:18;155:6;157:15
upper (33)
83: I 7;133: 15, 18,
23,25; 134:2,4,9, 15,
15,20,24,24; 135:1,4,
8,12; 137:4; 138:4,9,
13, l 6, 19;139: 14;
140:12,13,17;164:9,
20;191:10,19;
192:12;193:7
uppers (4)
83: 17; 134:22;
135:10;138:18
upward (1)
111 :16
url (2)
126:8,23
usable (1)
158:10
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
use (33)
4:16,22;6: 19;8: l,
6;15:9;23:21 ;36:4,
24;37:5;47:16;
53:25;54: l ;56:7;
93: 10;94:7; 107:7;
111 :1;113:9,13;
137:4,5,24; 142: 16;
143:6,8;148:7; 155:6;
160:9; 172:23;173:1;
189:22;193 :13
used (41)
I 1:16;24:1,6,7,8;
25:12,17,20;43:18;
47: 19;82: l 7;99:7;
l 07: 13, I 7; I 08:15;
112:15;113:1l ;
115:1,3,22;127:19;
129:22; 130:14,25;
157:21 ;160:8;
163:25; 165:4, 1O;
166:9, 15; 172:16,21;
173:17;174:6,9;
193:10;195:7;
196:22;197:1,3
uses (2)
53:25;118:1
U-shaped (1)
164:21
using (6)
22:3;98:2 I;
112:24;1 13:6;
137:20;143:11
usually (9)
5:8;33:20;54:7;
55:1 3,15,16;58:7;
90:15;144:8
Uzi (4)
155:3;168:6;
169:17;170:2
Uzi's (3)
62:6; 169:24; 170: I
v
vacuum (1)
20:21
vaguely (1)
127:18
value (2)
183:19,21
values (1)
183:24
varies (1)
56:25
variety (2)
33:23,24
various (7)
14:18;49:12;
53:25;72:3;73:9;
75:18;143:3
Vasquez (16)
34:16,22;35:2;
50:6;71 :19,22;92:9;
94:14,16,23;95: 1,12,
13,25;125:9;196:18
vast (1)
58:11
vehicle (I)
18:13
vehicles (1)
19:21
venue (1)
32:18
verification (1)
93:7
verify (2)
87:3;97:21
versa (1)
95:5
version (S)
62:17;98:9;101 :6;
141 :6;195:1
versus (3)
62: I;80: 18,21
vested (1)
12:13
vibrate (2)
193:17,19
vibrating (1)
193:25
vice (I)
95:5
video (8)
126:4,8,I 1,14,24;
127:12,14;128:8
videotaping (2)
123:10,13
view (2)
126:11 ;166:12
viewed (2)
43:18;128:8
views (I)
170:12
Violent (1)
186:12
Virginia (9)
4:12;5:17;7:1 l;
11:13,17;12:1l;
26: 18;64:14;74: 17
VISCOMI (18)
35:21,25;80: 16;
104:13;129:13;
130:9;131:9, 17;
155:21 ; 162:10,18;
179: 17; 180: l ;183:6,
12;199:8,l 1;20 1:23
visual (1)
99:24
volume (I)
60:8
volunteered (1)
19:24
volunteering (1)
19:25
1644
w
wagging(l)
189:21
wait (1)
5:22
walk-through (1)
55:14
wall (1)
168:12
wants (1)
130:15
war (4)
18:1;20:4,5,7
Warfare (I)
19:14
warrant (6)
72: 18;73 :2,14, 16,
22;74:14
warrants (3)
72:17,20;74:1 l
Washington (2)
75:5;77:9
watch (I)
22:25
watched (1)
123:24
way (47)
19:9;26:3;29:2 I;
5 I: I 0;55: I 8;59:22;
74:1;83:19;85: I 5,21;
95 :7;96:4;103 :9;
104:2;115:7,24,25;
118:13;121:11;
125: 1;1 29:3;1 3 l :8;
I 38:25; 146: 13,18;
147:12;148:2,l I;
149:3; l 50:25;
153:12;154:20;
156:18;158:13;
164:11;169:7,8;
175: 10;179: 15;
180:8; 187: l; 189:19;
191 :12;192:2;
193: 13,18; 196: 14
ways (S)
66:22;85:3;
136: I 0;143:7; 164:7
we/they (1)
188:24
weak (1)
116:10
weapon (11)
15:5; 17: 12, 12, 14;
18:13;23:17;62:1l,
13;138:8;181 :4,19
weapons (26)
18: 1O,lI ,12, 13,15,
16,17,18,19,19;
21: 19,24;23:22;25:2,
16;29:2;62:4;68:20,
25;69:10, l 2, 14,15,
(23) type - weapons
RIF
' r
'
Max M. Kingery
September 16, 2009
16,17;70:4
wear (7)
171 :19,21,25;
172:4, 15,22; 174:4
wearing (1)
194:5
weather (5)
19:10,11;20:12;
23:12,12
web (2)
126:3,24
week (1)
33:11
weeks (1)
97:3
weight (1)
121:16
welcome (I)
15:24
weld (4)
67:1;105:7;
116:11;144:19
welded (5)
116:13;135:2;
138:19;145:10;
164:20
welding (5)
38: 18,20,21,22;
119:1
welds (2)
145:1,l
weren't (11)
11 :7,8;22:5;4I:16;
49:7;109:19;114:21;
123:20;124:21;
125: I 8;169: 15
Wesson (6)
14:23,24,25;55:2,
3;56:3
West (8)
4:12;5:17;7:1 I;
11:13,17; 12:10;
26:17;64:14
what's (22)
12:6;31: 18;51 :23;
89:2;92: 18; l 06:3;
111:12;115:5;
129:10;130: 12,21;
131:4;132:1,22;
133: I; 150:20;
166:22;167: 1l;
170:10;185: 15;
190: 10;196:9
wheel (1)
73:15
whenever (1)
31:23
whichever (2)
47:20; 181 :19
whole (4)
47:19;54:22;
58:19;171:5
wide (2)
wear - zip (24)

33:22,24
widen (5)
144 :20,21,22;
155:7;199:21
widened (8)
144:3;153:25;
154:7; 161:21;163: 1,
5,11;171:3
widening (I)
154:21
Wills (1)
77:8
Wisconsin (I)
19:15
withdraw (1)
101:15
Withdrawn (1)
183:2
within (10)
8:23; 11:24;12: 12,
23; 15:6; 16: 15,23;
60: 13;62: 12; 185 :9
without (15)
41:8;61 :18,21;
62:12;63:5,8;85:9;
95:4; 129:8; 130: 1;
160:9; 169:20;
183: I 3;192:18;
196: 12
withstanding (1)
100:4
WITNESS (18)
35:22;36:1;66:4;
75:2;104:16;129:15,
I 8;130:12; 131 :19;
156:1;162:11,14,17;
173: I 9;178:5;180:3;
183:8,17
wonder (1)
187:24
word (2)
138:20; 177: 15
words (2)
65:4;85:11
work (33)
7:3,24;12:19;
25:11 ;30:25;37:22;
38:18;39:11;40:7;
42:22;46:9;49:5;
58:22;70:8;73: 12;
85:14;90:14;96:5,7,
18,19,20;125: 12;
146:4, 15, 19,23;
148: I 5;187:11,25;
190:25;201 :8,10
worked (9)
12:21,23;14:5, 10;
24:2;35: 18;96: 11,22;
100:7
working (7)
11 :8;26:9;38:11;
43 :23;44:15,21;
54:16
works (8)
36:18,20;55:17;
71: 14;92:5,6;101 :10;
187:13
world (1)
25:20
wrap (1)
194:7
wrapped (2)
113:14;121:22
wreck (1)
189:22
write (6)
33: 14;4 7:6,8;56:5;
63: 15;89:6
writes (I)
61 : 11
writing (4)
47:10;62:21;
96: 13; 185:8
wrong (3)
I 0: I 3;191 :1;
193:25
wrote (4)
89: 11,22;93: 16;
97:25
x
x-ray (5)
66:11,14,25;67:3,7
x-raying (1)
67:1
y
year (5)
16:22; 19: I 2;27:5,
7;74:10
years (14)
7:7, 14,17; 15 :14,
18,20,21 ;20: 13;
24: 16, l 7;25:24;30:9;
54:9;61 :6
yesterday (2)
86 :24;87~ 12
z
zip (24)
107:7,8, 13, 16;
108:3,4,7,10, 14, 18;
112:19,24;113:6,6,
20; 114:12,14,22,25;
115:5,21;189:2,J I;
191:22
1645
\lin-l -Sl ripf<l<
RIF
U.S. Department or Justice

Fireanns and Explosives
W:1Shing1on. DC 20226
www.3tf.gov
903050:RDC
3311 /2005-500
APR 2 0 2006
Mr. Len Savage
President
Historic Anns LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Dear Mr. Savage:
This is in reference to a classification sent to you on July 11, 2005 by the Fireanns Technology
Branch {FTB), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns and Explosives {ATF), regarding a
resubmission for examination and classification of a modified RPD 7.62x39mm-type upper
receiver assembly, designated the "BM-3000."
In our prior correspondence with you we stated:
The reexamined, modified Historic Arms LLC "BM-3000" is a significantly redesigned assembly
when compared to an original RPD type firearm. The frame, being designed to mate with the
frame or receiver ofan M-1 l ININEmm type fireann, will not allow the introduction ofa11
original RPD bolt/bolt carrier assembly or a cocking handle.
In conclusion, FTB has detem1ined that the frame of the submitted Historic Arms UC "BM3000" does not constitute a frame or receiver of a "fireann" as that tenn is defined in I 8 U.S. C.
92 I (a)(3). Additionally, the frame does 11ot constitute a frame or receiver ofa "machinegun"
as that tem1 is defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
Upon reconsideration, we are hereby overturning that classification.

As you arc aware, the National Fireanns Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines the term
"macbioegun" as" ... any weapon which shoots. is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,
automatically more than one shot, without ma11ual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
This term shall also include the frame or receiver ofany such weapon. any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination ofparts designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegzm, and any combination ofparts from which a
machinegim can be assembled ifsuch parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person."
1646
RIF
Mr. Len Savage
"Firearm" is defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as
amended:
The term "fireann" means (A) 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;
(C) any firearm muffier or firearm silencer; or {D) any destructive device.
Such term does not include an antique firearm.
"Receiver" is defined in regulations implementing both the GCA and NFA, 27 C.F.R. 478.11
and 479.11, as "That part of a fireann 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 "BM-3000" is comprised of the following components:
Receiver.
Top cover assembly.
Forearm.
Gas system.
Bolt canier assembly.
Bolt assembly.
Metal receiver insert approximately 3.074 inches (78mm) long.
Modified shoulder stock assembly.
The receiver of this sample is marked "HISTORIC ARMS LLC FRANKLIN GA" {left side)
and "BM-3000" (right side).
The reexamination by FTB revealed the following characteristics/features of the receiver
assembly:
Manufactured from three separate sections (seams are visible internally).

Sides machined to accommodate a lower receiver assembly of an M-11 /NINEmrn type
firearm, preventing installation of an original RPD-type trigger group.
Two extensions added to the underside of the RPO receiver for an M-11/NINEmm
takedown pin.
Bolt-canier slots undersized to approximately .198 inch (5mm), preventing installation of
an original RPO bolt carrier.
Approximately 5.622 inches (16mm) of the left bolt-carrier slot filled with weld.
1647
RIF
-3Mr. Len Savage
Metal bar approximately 8.75 inches (22lmm) by .505 inch (13mm) welded to the
exterior of the left receiver wall.
Top cover assembly marked "IlK 372 6". No alterations or modifications were noted.
Further, the examination of the "BM-3000" found that a metal bar, approximately 6.25 inches x
.181 inch, had been welded into the (previous) cocking handle slot. There were four visible
welds securing the bar to the receiver wall.
When assembled onto a lower receiver of an M-11 fNINEmm type firearm as intended, the bolt
assembly cannot be withdrawn to the rear unless the top cover assembly is lifted.
Since the "BM-3000" provides housing for the bolt, breechblock and firing mechanism,
it is a "receiver" as defined in 27 C.F.R. 478.11and479.11. Further, while it is not
threaded at the forward end, it does provide an attachment point for the barrel. Therefore,
it is a "firearm" as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(3) as it is the frame or receiver of any
weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by
the action of an explosive.
The "BM-3000" is a "machinegun" as defined in the NFA due to its design characteristics and
features, which facilitate the firing of more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger, and because it incorporates the frame or receiver of a machinegun. Its
design features include its ability to utilize the same RPD gas system and feed system. It is also
belt-fed. Further, while it has been modified such that it will no longer accept an original RPO
bolt/bolt carrier assembly, the modified bolt assembly supplied does not prevent automatic fire,
and in fact is designed such that the firearm will only function in the automatic mode. Also, a
semiautomatic firearm typically is striker fired or hammer fired. The BM-3000 is designed to
fire from the open bolt and does not utilize a striker or hammer but rather incorporates the firing
pin in the bolt itself.
Our initial classification stated that it was neither a "machinegun" nor a "firearm." This was
based on the differences between an original RPD and the submitted sample. When viewed
independently, it is apparent that the firearm submitted is designed to shoot automatically with
the addition of the M-11/NINE type lower receiver. The prior classification was also based on
the fact that the cocking handle slot was welded shut. However, this would not prevent the
firearm from being fired were it to be assembled.
Further, if an M-11/NINE type submachinegun lower receiver is possessed along with the "BM3000", it would also be a machinegun as it would be a combination of parts from which a
machinegun can be assembled. This is because it appears that when the M-11/NINE type lower
receiver is added, it will fire more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function
1648
RIF
-4-
Mr. Len Savage
of the trigger. We did not test fire the sample submitted as a complete fitted sample was not
provided.
The "BM-3000" is subject to all of the controls of the NFA and GCA. Manufacture of the
machinegun for resale would be restricted to persons holding a manufacturer's license under the
GCA and qualified as Special Occupational Taxpayers (SOT) under the NFA.
These findings are applicable only to the specific item as submitted. Any alterations or
modifications to the "BM-3000" may affect this classification and subject the assembly to
further review.
It should also be noted that attaching a registered pre-1986 M-11 /NINE type submachinegun
lower receiver to the "BM-3000" does not result in a machinegun that can be legally transferred
to, or possessed by, the general public. 18 U.S.C. 922(0) prohibits the manufacture of
machineguns after May 19, 1986, for other than law enforcement use. Attaching a pre-1986
M-11/NINE type lower receiver to the "BM-3000" results in the manufacture of a new and
different machinegun that bears little resemblance to the pre-1986 registered machinegun.
The new firearm has many of the characteristics of an RPO. Little is left that resembles the
M-11/NINE. The M-11/NINE type submachinegun lower receiver is used merely as a fire
control system. Accordingly, the resulting weapon would not be a machinegun that was lawfully
possessed prior to May 19, 1986, and can only be manufactured, transferred, and possessed for
law enforcement use.
In addition, assembly of the two receivers amounts to "making" a machinegun under the NFA
which requires filing an ATF Form 1, or, in the case of a qualified Special Occupational
Taxpayer, an ATF Form 2, to register the newly assembled machinegun.
We trust the foregoing was responsive to your request for a classification.
Sincerely yours,
Sterling Nixon
1649
RIF
U.S. ~partml'nt or Justkl'

Hun-au uf Akuhul. Tuhuc.u1,
fut;um.~ and ExplOS1\e.~
JUL 1 12005
JOJO.SORDC
JJ I l l2005500
Mr 1.c:n Sa,ayc
Prcs1Jcnt
Htstonc Anns LLC
1486 Chmy Road
Fr.inkhn. GA 30:? 17
Dear Mr. Sa\ age:
This refers 10 your lcllcr of June 29, 200S, 10 the Firc::irm5 Technol08Y Branch (FTD), Bure:iu of
Akt1hol, TobilCcu. fm:anns and E!lpkishcs (ATF). n:pnhni; a resubmission of11 modified RPD
7.62x39mnHypc upper rccci,cr :wcmbly, designated lhe "BM-Jooo,-1hat FTn n:ccl\t!tl for
c:uinunatiun anJ d:IS.'ilication
:h yuu .m: <1Wi1TC, 111 our previous correspondence to you (referenced under 331 l f:?OOSP34J),
HA hr:ltl 1111.11 th!! suhnum.d ''HM- 3000," 7 .62:'39mm-caliber s:imple incorporated 11 frame or
ri:ccm.-r of a 1nachin.:gun. It was therefore d11Ss1fic:J us a ''machine~"'".. as Jdin\:c.I in :?6 US (~
~
Sll.t'ithl
I 11
~un 1rnan1c.
the rcsuhmlllcd sample 11 compn$l'\I of tl-c: followmg components
Rc:t:C'l\Cf
Top coHT asstmhl>.

furcann .
G.1.~ syi;h:m
Aarn:l appro>.1m:itcl) 20 112 inches Ion~.

Boll earner :isscmbly.
llolJ :\SSCntbJy,
~ktal ~em:r 1n.~rt appro:\im.ildy J ON inchc:s ( 7Smnt) long.
Modilic:J shoulJc:r stock as~'lnbly .
l'he rccetHr nC 1h1s !>.impl~ is marked "HISTORIC' ARMS I.I,(' FR,\NKl.IN GA" (len side}
:inJ MBM- JOOO" (nght sulc).
1650
RIF
Mr. l.cn Savage
This current rccxamin:ition by FT8 f'C'.'e;alc:d the following char.1ctc:rishcs!foa1ures uf the: rt:edvcr
:lSSetllbl y
Manufactutoo from three scpanuc scccions (5C11ms uc visible inlcm111ly).

Sides 0\.1Ch1n~ h> 3(commodate :i lowcr rcccm:r asscmhly oflll'I M-11 ININfanm type
lirc:inn. pl"C\cnting ins.tall:uion of :an ongm:il RPDt)'llC 1nggcr grour.
T\\O c.1ltens1ons addl!d to Ill<: wkicrside of the RPO ~c1vcr for an Ml JiNINEmm
t:akeJuwn pin
Bolt-c:inic:r slots undl!tsizcd to approxim:iccly .198 inch l!imm), Jlrc"cnting inst;illation of
an ongi11:al RPO bolt carrier
Approx1m1111!1y 5.622 inches (I 6mm) of the lei\ boll-carrier slot fillc:d with "dd.
Metal bar approximauly 8.7S inches t22 Imm) by .SOS inch ( 13mm) welded 101hc
~xtcnor of the left recchcr wall.
Tup co"er assembly m;irkcd "OK 371 G". No :iheratfons or mod1fo:a1ions \l.C:re noted
rurth.:r. tht- examma11011 of the "UM-3000" submiuc:d under this correspondence fouml 1h11t 11
metal bar. approxmli:Ucly 6.25 inches it , 11!1 inch. has been weld~ mto the (previous) <:uckmi:;
handle slot, lllcre un: four \'1siblc welds securing lhc bar to lhc rtccivcr wall.
When assembled onto a lower rcrchcr of an M-11/NfNF.mm type! firearm as intended. lhe bolt
assembly cannot he w11hdrawn In 1hc rear unless the top CO\'er assembly is lifted.
Ille rec1l:immcd. modified lliscoric Arms Ll.C' "BM-3000" 1s a Sll:lJJilic-jntl)' r1.~s1gnl"tl
assembly whc:n compared lo an oriw1rn1I RPO l)"pe firearm, ~ fr:ime, being Jes1gncd to malt:
wuh the frame or reccl\cr of11n Ml l/J\INEm1n type fitt31m. v.111 no1allow1hc introduction of
an ongin;il RPD bolL1huh earner 1w;cmhly ur a cockinl!l h:u!tlle.
In conclusi1m. FTB hias dclcnnincd 1hal the fr:unl! of the: subnullcd lhstoric Arms I.LC' "13M
JOOO" docs not con~tuulc ii frame or rcccr\'cr of a "Ii rearm" u thut li:nn is defined m 18 U S,C
~ 9! I(:1)(:1). Addition:illy, the frame Jocs noc cons111utc a f"1mt' or receiver of a "machmcgun"
as th al term 1s defined 111 2b U.S .C S845(b).
llus determination is rdcv:ml lo lhc cnnlii;uration ofll1c 1tc111 as submitted under this
lorn.-i.1>0ndc11c c
1651
RIF
.3.
Any ;ihcr.ationi; or modifk.1tions 10 the: dC$ign \lioulJ

to fur1hc:r n;\1cw.
\01J
this d:&Ssilication and suhJccl lhr: 11r:m
We 1n1st the forcgoini was rL-sponswc 10 your request ror an cvalwtion Th\.' s:implc will be
re1umcd to you unJcr !;C:parah: Ct>\' Cr
Smccrcl)' yours,
c;;::',l
Stc:rlint; Nixon
Chief, Fin.-arms Tcchm>logy Branch
1652
RIF
Jun
70S - G7!S08t8
29 O!S 041 t?a
"I
I' I
..
- --------fircarna Tcclino!OI)' Branch

Anention:
Nixon
244 Needy Road
s.atma
~WV2S401
DCBJ Mr. Nixon,
I have spin modified the: dcsip of the 8Ml000, ud am n:subminiq it fw classification. In

yDW" 1- oom:spondcnce (n:fcn:uccd under (9030SO: RDC 331 l/200.S.J4J). You suired in~
2, lat~ lhc tCSliog aik:ria l.mda which the BM--3000 WU subjc:c1ad. (the: mi:
plastic
tic: wraps and small mc\111 bar. and damping wtit to a shootina bench via chain (as pic:IWCd i n
)'Our pholo)J.
or
You also stated; ''The coclcina hand.le SUPf'llUUS die normal functfon on the trigger.- I ha\'C found
lhat the dri'llC roller for ~ "'P cover f-1 device ..supp&.ta" du: coc:kina handle, whc:ft the
cockina handle Is remowd ftom Che BM JOOO. (and cocJdna slol mled with weld, fco be: ddacd
emitely in production unit})
llte holt carria can oaly cock and lock back. when the BM 3000 is inslallcd on a rqiSlen:d
M-1 1IM-1 O m;achinc gun. it can only be cocked with the IOp cover open. Tbm:! is no way for the
feed device 10 fUnction DlOre dial one sho1 without the host mac:hinc pn.
If tc:stcci under w 9amC exact criteria, you will find it is imposslble to amkc lhc BM)OOO caliber
convcnion ~fire more that one shot per function oflhc: lrigeer (suppl&Med. cockina ~roller"
knob).
-~
LmSavll8c
~
;:
t..
I liiitoric Anns LLC
1653
RIF
U.S. ~nl ol Justice

Bureau or Altahol, Tohilcco.
f-ircanns and Explosiv"
------
- -- - -
FEBZ3 -
.""'"
IJ030SO:RV
lll 112006358
Mr. Len Savage
Prcsidc:nl
Hi'1oric Anrui UC
'
1416 Cherry Road

Fnmklin,GA 30217
Ocat Mr. Savage:

'Ibis refen to your faxed conaponclence, dated January JO, 2006, lo the Firearms Tcchnoloay
Brmich (FTB) 811rca11 of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms Ind Explocives (ATF). In your
communicaliQ4l, you requesc clarifialion ofFTB'1 clwifica.Lioo ofthe BMJOOO you previously
subnrilled !Or evaluacion. lnd&Xled wilb your letter is I copy or an aniclc on a "Smith
conversion" printed in 11ie Strtoll Anu RetlKw, February 2006.
You further wish FTB lo clarify the ..shoalring delmDinltioa" and the me or a mehll bar and
cable ties IO lest lire you.r BM 3000.
With n:1pC1Ct lo clusiftcalion o(tbc BMJOOO, your main c:ooccm i110 know why difrcrmt
standuds were 1pplicd co the nbmisa:ion of your BM-3000, which ia a vcnion of an RPO
7.62x39mm aliber sholaJder fired m8Cbiaepn. and the Smi1h conversion. whicl ii a modified
upper receiYa" of 11'1 M1l mecbine pisaol.

Plaase note dial in ICnlality, the RPD llDd Ml 1 ue very difTcrait types of m~. The
RPO is a riflo.type macbinapo. Ind the MI I is a madUne pblol.
Whtn a sample firearm i1 submitted to FTB for evaluation, we compuc dull sample 10 lhc typo
ofweapon ii 11 bacd on. Yow BM-3000 is avcnion of m RPO 1hlChinegvt1. Tho particular
portion oflhe RPD and BM3000 lhal i1 c:omidaed the naichiacpn TeCeivcr c:onsilb of the
upper section 10 which Ule bmel is-~ The RPO 6ring mochanism i1 limply a lria.gcr
housiog attached to the recdvc:r. Your BM3000 i& copy of an RPO made: for attlChmc:nl to ma
M 11 RCCivcr. Your original requa& w11 far FTB lo classify )O'll' RPD as a "nan fm:ann" ar a
caliber eonvc:nion kit.
The ovcnlJ madllncpn definition has more than OM clcmcnL Part of!M dcfmi1;on pc:rUiin1 lo
wnpon1 that an: "dcsisncd lo shoot autom.tically." Prftioualy. ATF has published
Ruli1'g$ 1128 and BJ-J which spelled OUI the ATF muning or the phrlle "dcsipcd lo shoot "
1654
RIF
2
Mr. Len Savage
In the rulings. the phrase is described as follows

..The 'designed' dcfini1ion includes those weapons which hztVc not previou1ly functioned l!I
machmc:guns but posse" des.ii,:n fcutures which rac1litate full automatic fin: by a simple
modirtclllion or elimination of exisllng pans.
M
Your BMJOOO is desipd 10 fire from the open boll. It simply needs a trigger drncc lo fire. To
clcmonstnlc thal it had design feature lo fire iw1oma1ically, it wu ICl1 fired in the manner
dcscnl>ed in FTB's pn:viau1 letter ofevaluation. Tbe following ism excerpt or our prevjous
kuer (# 200S-343) reviewing the evaluation pn>ccduru~
The individual groups wen- oss0tbled into tlrdir mpm~ pos11ioru, TM shouldn- stock
ossttmbly was 01tcltornJ to tM rdc.iwr by 11 smu ofpll1Slic tirr tW'tlf'$ tlJftl 11 small m~ol bar
(from FTB inVf!'ltory). TM bar 'WOS 11.1ed tU a pide ond t111 aclrormg poiJtt. Initially, tltu
1u.tembly did not di.tt'lraTgf! ., rolllfd ofamnnmltiOfl. It *OS/OWtd thal tire bolt loch ~ nol fully
enge1g;,1g 1/te adjaunt rtta.!t!S In thf! rrc:eivrr wall1. 711iJ condition prnented the homlfrtt'
Jurface ofthe bolt carrier fl'Wlf propnfy con1ac1t1tg the flriltg pin.
Th~ sa"'pl' W1U sub11unu/y disasnmbleJ and the itutolkd bolt assonhly replocttJ with a bolt
f1SJ'11fbly from a lihmatkl fln:onn from tlte FTB Jireonu refenrtcf eolllllHf. On again. tit~
1lrocJJe, stock assmtbly was ant:horwl to 1111: recri11et' wUAi pla.ttlc tie wrap. Tlrne 1"0fmdJ of
Wolfbrand, 7.62xJ9mnt OMmunttiOfl lffn! loadal llfto o tMta/ lhlk tuttlrfbly. Wtth tlie bolt
handle held to 1/11 rear (by luuuJ). the rop cowr iwu dOHJd. Two rourub dlsdta~
automoticolly wlrnt tlfft ba/1 ltandl wu rlf!IJJal. ~ tllbd round Wd.t cllantberftl. but did
fire. Some ofthe p/asnc tie wraps dis/~ tlurlni latf/rlI
"'
The M-,,01' -.r lhtM dUossemblcd, lnspecutl. alUI TmJSt:Mb/ed for a .Jl!COM/ tut fviltg.
PreparaJfort for flrlrtg wcu pafonri/ 111 IM S1Dt
befon. Upon the n:lea:M ofthe boll
ltfJIUl/e, all three roullfb dUdsa'lal OlllOlftOlkolly. No /ulfJwr tut flrit1p
cond111:1l In
both tats, ,,,. Jlrlna #fJWJICC ~ inillolI by tit~ of1Jre bolt liandlt1. 71iu luwlle
.ruppl1111U tJ., nonrtalfaftCfiOll o/o "trlgga-."
"'""*'"as
...a
As ow reply indicated, the bar lad cable lies MR llllld lo hold tbc pans togdher encl to show
that )'OW' BM-3000 bad design fcatura daat would lJow ii to shoot automatically. Our Bnmch
used die devices to dcmonstn1c lhe limpllllt l'DClhod ror eshlblilhing that your m.:hincgua
receiver fires automatically. Thaeforc, your charKCm~ion lhal the bu and c;able ties
conslilule a conversion part is incon-cct.
The: Smith conversion is a modified Ml 1 bln"d housing or upper n:ceiva-. M indic:atcd, lhe
M 11 ii a machioe pislOI. The receiver of a piswl is gencnlly the lcnm- nicc:ivc:r, so modifying
the uppc:r receiver woukl nee be a violation. The Sruilll coavusion ia 1 blrTeled upper m:eiVCI'
1hii1 hu had the length atmdcd aad modified 10 accept a Suorni maprine.
1655
RIF
Mr. Lr:n Savage

With reference to your comparison or our evaluation conduc:tcd on your BM3000 Md the
evaluation conducted on the aboe iring 111tachcd to 1 scmiaulomllic rifle. please 5tudy the
rollowing. which is &m excerpt from ano1her FTB reply (#3004379):
Jn 1996, FTB f!ZDminnl and dtusljied a l4i1teli long slioatring witlt a loop '11 Nclt niJ. TM
siring wcu attached to the cocking llllndle ofa se,,,/0U1or1rot/c rifle and was loopl Of'Oflnd IM
trigger artd artar:h6J to tlte slr0016' '1 fittger. TM dr.ii" camai tllw lW!apan to ftn rrptatttlly
11ntllfi11gwr F'""n was releasedf rotn the .urinf. BttallK I/Ju frOJi wa.r daignrd ""' illlerulnl
to ~rl a semio11toma1ic rifle Into u nracA/11~1111, FTB tktu11dMtl tluit ii wm o dd11qu
as defin~ fn 16 U.S.C. 584$(b).
In this context, tfthe string was tied in manner enabling it to~ a scmiil\ltomalic rine 10 fin:
automatically, it would indeed be c.on~ton part at the time ii wu 1mxed to the rifle,
In conclusion, 1111 evaluations FTB condue11 are cquiClbly baaed on ~h on the item
S\Jbmitlcd and comparisom to a simillll ilcm. Pistols arc eompored to piMofl and rifJcs arc
compared to rifles. Similarly, semiautomatic vuiants ofmxhincgum BR tomp;!Rd to the
variant of the maehincgun that is being re-copied. lbctcfo~ FTB cannot we the umc
evaluation critcriia with rcspcc:I your BM-3000 shoulder-fired machinepm that was used on
Smith's Ml I machine pistol conYC:rsion.
'
We tnill the foregoing was responsive to your request for a f\llthcl" explanation.
Sincerely youra.
1656
RIF
U.S. ~rtmrnl or Jmlkc

BuA:n of Alcohol. Tobacro,
Fittamn and F..llplos1v~
.k)l 1 12005
90lOSO:RDC
:m 112oos.soo
Mr. Len Savage

Presidmt
Historic Anni UC
1486 Cherry Road
Franklin, GA 30217
Dear Mr. Savage:

This refers to your lelll~r of June 29, 2005, lo the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Burau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms :ind Explosives (ATF), n:prding a n:submission oh modified RPO
7.62ll39mm lype upper rcoecivn assembly, designated the "BMJOOO,' " that FTB received for
examination and classification.
AA you 11rc awatc. in our previous c:om:apondc:Ke IO you (refctmccd mKk:r 331 J/2005-343),
FTB bckJ 1hac 1hc A1bntit1ed "BM-3000," 7.62ll39nim<allbcr wnple incoq>Omod a frame or
rccejvcr of a machinc:gun. Jt wu tbcrefore clalified u "mKhinepm" as dtfined in 26 U .S.C.
i 584S(b).
To wmnwizc, the resubmilted sample is comprised ofthe following components:
Receiver.
Top cover assembly.
Forearm.
Gu l)'l!em.
Bwrel approxiriWcly 20-112 inc:hca long.
Bole carrier assembly.

Bolt assembly.
Melal receiver insert approximately 3.074 inches (11mm) long.
Modified shoulder stock usaabty.
The receive.- of this sample i1 mwlcd '"HISTORIC AR.MS LLC FRANKLIN CA" (ldl side)
and "BMJOOO.. (right sido).
1657
RIF
2
Mr. lm Snvagc
This cumml reexamination by fT9 rcvailed the following ctwx1cristicslf~t11R::> or the rtccivcr
as,,emhly
Manufactured from thn:c r;c:pnatc ..:ctions (seams arc visible internally).
Sides machined to accommodate a lower receiver uscmbly of an M 11/NlNEmm type

firnnn, pm1enting inscalla1ion of an original RPDl)'l'C 1riger sroup.
Two extmsions added to the underside or the RPO recciYCr for an M 11 /NINEmm
lal:cdown pin.
Ooh-carrier 1lols undersiud lo PP"Oximately .198 inch (Smm), prcvcming installation of
an original RPO boll carrier.
Approximately S.622 inches (16mm) of the left bolt-carrier sl01 filled wil.h weld.
Metal bDr iipproximalcly 8.7S inches (22hnm) by .SOS inch (13mm) welded to the
CJ:lcrior ofllM: left receiver wall.
Top c:ovCT antmbly maliced "nK 372 6'. No alterations or modifications were noted.
Fwthc:r, the c:x:imination of the "BM-3000.. submitted under this correspondcnce found lhat a
metal bar, appn>ximatcly 6 .2S inches x . IBI inch. bu been wdded into the (previous) cocking
lwidlc sloe. There are four visible welds sec:mina ihe b IO lhe receiver wall.
When as.semblcd onto a lo-Ncr r=dvc:rofan Ml l/NINEmn IY1JC 6re.m u iatmdcd, the bolt
assembly C3MOl be withdrawn to the rear unk:l1 the top COYcr usanbly ia lifted.
'fhc reexamined, modified Historic: Anus LLC "BMlOOO" is a significantly Rdesipcd

assembly whm com~ 10 an origjnaJ RPO type firann, The fmne, being designed to mate
with the frmne receiver of an M-11 /NlNEmm l)'PC fin:ann, will not allow lhe inuoducdon or
an original RPO bolllbolt carrier assembly or a coctinl lwidle.
"
Jn conc:hasioo, FTB has determined that 1he Cnme of the IUbmintd Historic Anos LLC ..BM
30<Xr does not c:on&iihlle frame or receiver of 1 "fireann" as llW lmn is defined ill 11 U.S.C.
f 921 (a)(3). Additionally, the: fmnc docs not constitute 1 lbme or receiver ora "machincp"
as that tam ii defined in 26 U.S.C. SMS(b).
This dctermimlion is rclc:vml to the conlip.int;on
or the item u
submincd Wider !Iris
c:onapondcnce.
1658
RIF
-l
Mr Len Savage
Any allcrations or modifications In thc dcsiJ1l wo11ld void lhis c1assificalicn and subj eel lhc 1lnn
to
fun~
review.
We truS1 lhe foregoing was n:sponsivc Co your rcquesl ror an cvnluation. The sample will be
n:tunM:d to you under sc:pua&c cover.
Si nc~rcly
yow-a.
c;;:='t
Sterling Nion
1659
RIF
Bureall of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Fi~
and Explo.rives
- - - --------APR , ,
zoo~.
wwwl1/,..,
9030-SO:RDC
331112005.343
Mr. Len Sav~ge

Pruidenl
Hiatoric: Arms LLC
J486 Cherey Road
Franklin. GA 30217
Dear Mr. Savage:
This rcfen to your letter of April 4, 2005, to the Firewms Tedmology Branch (flll), Bureau or
Alcohol, Tobacco, Faurmt and Explosives (ATF), regarding 1 resubmission of 4 modified RPO
7.62.:39nvnlypc upper receiver aSKmbly, dc:sipated the ..BM-3000," that fTB received for
c:umination Ind classification.
As yuu are aw1re, in our previous inespcndenc a to you (rcrc:rcncal under 331112003507),
FTB held Iha& tho submiucd "BM-3000" 7.62x39mm-c:alibcr ample irxorponted a 6amc or
receiver of I mllChincpa. Jl WU thcrc:fVR cJaaificd U ~,. U dofJOCld in 26 U.S.C.
t S84S(b).
The CWTCnlly submitted sample is comprised of the followift& co1nponen11:
Receiver.
Top cover &Aembly.
FOl'l:lll'n
Gas system.
Burd approxinaaldy 20- l/l inc:bes laag.
Bolt carrier aaanbly.
Bolt iissembty.
Metal m:civa- imat llppl'Ox.imatel)' 3.074 inches (7lmla) Jong.
Modified shoulder stock ancmbly.
The receiver of this sample ii meted '"lll!ITOJUC ARMS LLC FRANKi.JN GA" (left side)
and ..Bl'tf.JllOO" (ript side). The FTB examimtion noccd the following chancteristii:alfeahre:s:
ManufKtUrcd ftocn dnc sepinte Kdions (se11n1 an: vitible inle:ma1ly).

Sides m..:hincd lo KCOllUAOCI* I IOWt:t RlCGYCr manbly or an M-11 INTNEmm lypc
fireum. prCY csilin& installlrioa of m original RPO-type triger group.
1660
RIF
2
Mr. Uri Siavagc
Two cxlcnsions lidded to the undenidc oflhc: RPO rcecivcr for an M-11/NINEnvn
1uc:down pin.
Bolt-carrier dob undmizcd to approximtlcly .191 inch (Smm), pn:Ycntin1 installation of
an original RPD bol1 carrier.
Approximately S.622 inches (16nun) oflcR bolt-carrier slO( filled with weld.
MelAI bar approllimatdy l .7S inches (221mm) by _sos inch (J3mm) welded to the
exterior or the left receiver wait
The lop cover membly is mart:cd "nk 372 6''. No allenrion1 or modifiations wen: noted.
ln addition, a modiracd RPD-lype boJt Rf'rier wu found iastallcd. The following
characlcristicsl(cmues ofthi1 bolt curler were noted:
Entm Jell nil removed, giving cbc boll carrier a width or 1pprollimdy .BJS inch
(21nw).
JlisJ!l dde machined, leaving dJc rail approximately .178 inch (4 ..Smm) in hcig)tl
Scar ooleh machined in undc:nidc.
Origjml scar lhoutdc:r removed.
Unmodified pa pisWn.
Unmodified lianmd/rollor llCCtion.
Elltcrior of bolt locb machined ~
The shou)dcr lltOCk aucmbly hal 1N:crt modifiod by lhe .sdition or cwo memiOIUI. TbeK
extension 11e dcsiped to male with lhcr rar of an M-1 IJNJNEmmtype fin:um that wu
dcAgpcd b a raiJ..typo Mlea:oping lbouldcr ltOClt-
ln light of the pn;vtoal dctennin8lion reprding lhc "BM-l-000," an atlcmpl was made lo test fin:
lhe ample. The indi~ll poups were aaanblcd row lllcir ~ti\l'C positions. The sbouJder
aoc:k aacmbty wa 1nc::bot cd IO lhe receiver by 1 -=rim orpllMic tie wraps and a smlll metal bu
(&om FTB iavaMory). The blr wa ued 11 a pido and an lneborins poinL Initially, this
auembly did noc disc:harge a round of mmmaition. It was found 1hal lhe bolt loc:k1 wens not
l\IOy eep!PDI lhe ldj1ecnt naaca in tM receiv.:r waJIL 1bis condition ~ the hammet
surface or the boJt carrier &om prvparly conlKtin& lhc firiq pia.
The umplo- NbtcqDeotJy disaacmblcd and the lmcalled bolt mcmbly replaced w1tb a bok
assanbly ftvm 1 liko-tnadel firarm 6om the FI'B J\n::mm refaalce collection. Once pin. the
moulder atock llSRlll'lbly wa mchond lhe rccciw:r
plasbc lie wnpa. Tine nMlds of
Wolflnnd, 7.62x39rma ..amlUlitian WcrC loaded illlO 1 llldal link .sscmbly. With lhe boH
'
wl
1661
RIF
.3.
Mr. Len Savage
handle beJd 10 the ~{by lland), the cop cover WIS cloted. Two rounds discharged
~u1omaricaJly wbc:a the bolt handle w111 rdascd. The Chin! io.md was chllnbc:rcd. bvt did nol
fire. Somo oflhc plas1k tie wnp1 dislodacd during test firing.
The wapon was then ctia11 :1ribled, illspKlcd, and re:usrmbled fm a second test lirin&.
Prcpanlion for firing WM paformed in the 111111C manner bcf'oR.. Upon 1ho release ofLhc boll
handle. all lhrcc round discharged automatic:.11)'. No fiKM tell 6rinp wuc conducted. la
bolh cab, the ftriag sequence wa initiated by the rdase oftho bolt handle. This t.ndlc
supplanCI tbtl nonnal ftndon oh "trig:r."
In conchalion, F1'B found dJlt lhc "BM-3000" &Ubmittcd wiOi }OW April 4, ZOOS,
cone lplJOdcnc:c ia a weaipon tluil lhooCa ..comasically moN Ihm ont eo.. witboul mmuaJ
rclo.tin& by a sinl)e flbletioa oflbo trigger. The receiver ofthi1-.. is a hme or receM:r
of a rnlChincgun. Tltcrcfore, Iba submitted ample cionstitu1cl a ''machiJlepn" u defined ;n 26
U.S.C. 584S(b).
We trusi the forqohtg was iesponsive to your request tor m nallMltion. The ample will be
rdWned lo ya under~ cover.
1662
RIF
DllP"AR'TMIENT Ofl'TKl!:TRASURY
BURl!AU Ofl' ALCOHOL,. TOQACCO-Df'IRl!A~S
HOV 1 S 7003
9030SO:AVH
Jlll/2003-507
Hr. Lennis F. Savage III

Historic Arms, LLC
1486 Cherxy Road
Pranklin, Georgia
3021'1
Dear Mr. Savage:

This is in reply to your letter at May 19, 2003, and
ubn\itted SAQIPle of the BM-3000 prot:atype upper
receiv.r. Thia prototype is baaed on the Hiatorie
Arma Model RPO-SA 9ellliautOllllltic rifle and ie deaigned
for potential use vith registered M-11 type
machineguna.
The subnlitted ~le rea-aiblea a Ruaian RPD-type

machinegun and contains ~tain R'1D compoaents
including the ~rel, feed mecbani-, forearm, bipod,
and modified buttotock aeaenibly.
Baaed on an examination of the ~tted firearm and
the infonwation you have provided, we note that: the
receiver haa been aaaeaeled Wling aectiODB of a
previou11ly destroyed RPO .achinegun receivwr.
You
state that you are d.velopillg a CRC-manufactured
receiver t:hat would be produced fro91 solid metal
The eubmitted auaple alo incorporates an open bolt
Uring
Additionally, the recei'nlr hfll
been reamnufactured to eucb d111m1aiona that it io oo
iaechani....
longer capable of accepting an RPO 1Mchinegun type of

trigger houaing. It ia deaigned to be i1111talled on an
H-11 type . .chi.negun frame or r.caiver.
AB defined it\ 26 U.S.C. section 5845(b) of the
National Pinar11111 Act (RPA) , tbe term chinegun
meana .. anv veapou which ahoata, ia daigned to ahoot,
or can be readily reetored to shoot auc011111tically C90re
1663
RIF
Hr. Lennie P. Savage III

than one shot, without nianual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger. The tenD shall alao include
the fra111e or receiver of any such -pon, any part.
designed and intended solely and excluaively, or
combination of part designed frClll which a lllilchinegun
can be assembled if aucb part are in pot1aesaion or
The phrase, ahooca automatically, cover weapons
that will function autC11Datically. The readily
restorable phraae defines weapons which previously
could ahoot autom.tically but will not ehoot in their
preaent condition. By maploying the word, designed,
the definition includes weepona vhich have not
previouely functioned - 1Mch.lnegwus but possess
specific machinegun deaign featurea vbich facilitate
aut011tatic fire by aiJ11)le alteration or elimination of
existing eotaponont parts.
Due to its-design and con11truction, we find that the
as provided, in and of itaelf, incorporates
the frame or receiver of a . .chinegun and, therefore,
is a aiachinegwt" defined in Section 5845(b) of the
NPA. The fact. t.hat it U8M aa M-11 machil.gun - a
trigger housing doe not prac1ude ola8ification of
the upper receiver aa a receiver.
BM-3000
Pinally, th ample ia subject to all the proviaion

of the HPA, and it. ia aubj~ to 18 u.s.c.
section 922 {o)
Since t.he submitt.c! auiple ham been detrained to be a
machlnegun, and is not regiatered in acc:o:dance with
the p:raviaiona of the HPA, we are unable to return it
until you cmnplete an ATF Foria :z, Notice Of Pireanaa
Manufactured Or Imported.
Please provide thia office
with inatructiona concerning diirpoition of th it.ea
within 60 days, or it will be c:oneidered abandoned and
will be d.ieposecl of in accordance With the needs of
the Government.
1664
RIF
-3/
Mr. Lennie P. Savage III
We thank you for your inquiry and regret that the

foregoing aaaesament could not have been more
favorable.
Sincerely yours,
Chief,
1665
RIF
1666
RIF
1667
RIF
1668
RIF
1669
RIF
1670
RIF
..
1671
RIF
U.S. l>ei1artment of Justi~

Burc.111 or Ak"'liot Tolr.Jccu,
Fire:ums and P,.\'.plostve~
903050 (b) (6)
APR 0 l 2004
3311121)!)4-382
.... .,""'
(b) (6)
BRP Corporation
&90S Pct\$1Col:i Pl~
Upper M:irfboro, MD 20772
Dez (b) (6)
11iis ism reply to your recr:nt letter, us well 1is subsequtnt ~1k: mess:ige. to the P1re:ums
Technology Brancli (FI'B), Bure:iu of Alcohol. Tobxc:o. ritt:inm and Explosives (ATf).
Ac:comp:m}111g the letter was 11 fl'lllolypc of B scmiautom:ttic \'ClSion of C'JnTNn MG4.? th:lt )'OU
wish M\'C cl:lislficd ~ 1t scmi:w1.om:1tic nOc.. You l1lso submitted M inccmp!ctc rifle l"CCn\'t'I' a>
'deinonstmte bow ytiur ri Oe rccch"Ct is m:idc.
The upper receiver you h:wc provided has been m11nuf11Cturcd rrom four sections (see o.tt:1ehcd
p~) Yow-pn>CC$a dicutcs tho.t prior to welding tho hl.'080Ct1011s thllt hi>usc lhe bolt
mid(tring mc:ch:utism to;cthcr, :i hmlcncd "ec-1 bll>ck. ;ipproxnm1cly 31nchesinlcn1,'1h x 9 16
inch in haghl. is welded m placc tn the clan::Jel ~the n:eeivcr This picec pm\."tlts the
insuU211on oft1 'Ullldud r.tG-42 machinqun bolt
Re:v pnruon of recen-cr

l
1672
RIP
-2-
(b) (6)
&.t
In addition, as ei.1dc:nd'd is lhe phcxogruph bcfov., lhe undi:rsidc uflhts section ofthc rccci\'~
h:ls been modified to nccq>I only lite modified finng mechanism that is attDchcd to lhc n::ceh-a
Mel will fl() lunger llCCCJll n MG42 firing mechanism.
[Bottom of~ver
This firing mechanism hM been modified io 111:eepuen112111om:11tc. ARIS triggttcomponen15

Mil \I.ill no longer acccpl MG42 m:ichinegun componcr\IS. (See below .)
Bottom ofl-'Omplctc n:ceJVct wllh moth.tie()
L ~ mcch:lrusm
1673
RIP
,.
-3
(b) (6)
Furthcnnotc. the bolt 11Ssemhly hsls been modified by removing the cocking lug on the bottom,
:idding 11 Wl1 approxmuuely:?-1/2inchcs in leiigth x 1-1 4 inches m wid~, extending the firmg
pin, end adding a new cocking lug. As inditatcd in thcpholo be!ow. the rcmovaJ oftheorigmill
cocking lug nllows lhe modified boh to wodc in the n:ceivcr v.ith lhc tuirdc:ncd Sleet hlock
The two tbrw:ud sccllGns of the rcccivcr. which scrvc cs lhc b:iml shroud and house the baml.
have been \lo"C1ded ~. and tho R:mlcinii section is 11.'dded tn the lower portio.'1 of !he
rcccz\tr (Sec photos hclO\\.)
1674
RIP
(b) (6)
Bucci on the foregoing, fTB lw detcnnined that the saniwtomntic MG 42 fi~. u rccc1ved,
i' not n m:ichlncgun as defined ~~Jurthcr. th3l it C'JMOt be rQdilyconvcrtcd to a machinqm
An)' modi fit:ition tg the protot}'PC or any deviation in the manner in wluch the n:ccwcr ts
constructed could ciuutge our clnssi fic:ition.
We ili:mk you for your mquiry m'ld submiucd items end trust that I.he fo~gomg hll! been
responsive to your f"alOcst
Sincerely yours,
Sterr Nixon
F"u-c:ums Tl!Chnology Brunch
1675
RIP
,
OIJRAU OF AL.COHOL., TOBACCO AND FIRE:ARM~
W .... HIHOTON, PC :!0:l2G
U/..Y - 5 2Cm
903050: (b) (6)
3311
(b) (6)
BRP Corp
6905 Pensacola Plco

Upper
Dear
Marlbo~o.
,...aryland
20772
(b) (6)
Thia refers to your letter of February 23, 2000,

regarding a X~G99 prototype upper receiver and bolt
carr!er which you oubmitted for our examination.
From e.xacination of the oulx:dttcd oampla, it appeoro

that ~he XMG-99 prototype. upper receiver o..'1.Ci bolt
ca~rie~ are int.ended to function in an 8n::n, belt fed.
semiauto::uitlc ~i!le using a combination of German MG34
and l\R~.1s cot:pCJnents. The upper recoi ver appears to
pertom t:hc es.ontial functiona of an MG34 receiver,
except that an AR-15 rec:eivcr, grip and trigger
~niSlll io uacd instead of an MGH grip a:Joornbly a:-.d
trigger c~.hAniom. As provided, the Gub.~itted upper
receive~ canni t accep~ an HG34 barrel aosembly; the
bolt ia not complete, and a
~lotc rifle
ann9t be
a::iaembled.
oue
!ncomplet~ and -~finiuhed conditic n of the

oai::plen, we are unable to render a final
detarmiNltion: however, we believe that because of ita
part cular deo!gn, the XMG99 prototype upper receiver
is the !r~r:e or receiver of a firearm. Therefore, it
!S a "firca!.in ao that tcro 10 defined ln se.tion
:he
su~ltted
92l(o) (3 of Title 18, Ur.iced Stateo Code (U.S.C.).

In order fer you to engage in the bus~neoo of
manufacturing Guch ro~eivora for anle and
distribution, you muat have o ~eder~l Firearms License
aa a manufacturer of f1rearr.i:J (FFL type 07). A
Federal PireaI'm!J License io not required !or you to
1:1ake a firearm for your own peraonal uue.
WWW ATl' . TRt:As.oov
1676
RIP
..
(b) (6)
We are a.i.uo
unab~. e
to
det~tinine
the stiitus of a
complete rifle b01ncd on cxar.iinacion of an unfiniahed

prototype receiver
From the infort:Wltion provided, we
cee no evidence that it is the frame or receiver o( a
machinegun; alt.hough, it could be the frame or
~eceivc~ of a machincgun depending on the dcnign and
fu~ct j~r. ot the other ~ias:ng c~rr.pcnenLs.
If the complete rifle were in~apable of accepting a
detllehable maga~ina, the rifle would not meet the
definition of a aeciautor.'13.tic assault weapon aa that
term is defined in section 92l(a. {30 1 (Bl of Title 18,
u.s .c. Further, Section 922(r. of Title 18, United
Star.co Code, prohibits assembly of certain ahotgunu
and aemi4utocnatic rifles from i::iported parto. It the
aaocrabled rifle ccntains more chan 10 of the 20
1raport.ed parts l!Gted in 27 CFR 17B.39(cl, asael:lbly
of the rifle would be prohibited under section 922(r).
He a~ enclosing additional information regcrding
ce11nlaut01Ntt:!c A!l!lAUlt weapon:J ~nd oooel:lbly of ahotguns
and ac:nia~tcw~t! e rifleo from icported p4rts.
ffe trust that the foregoing ha.a been rouponaivc t o

your inquiry. !f you have further queotiono
concerning th!o ~~ttcr, pleage contact uo.
Sincoroly~~~ ~
~OWen,Jr.
Chief, Fireartra Technology
B~a
Bnclosures
1677
RIP
..
DEPARTM~NTOFTH~TR~SURY
BUREA.U OF A.L.COHOL., TOBACCO .-.Ne FIREARMS

WAS'HIHG'fDN, 0C 20226
MAR 3 0 2001
9030S O(b)
(6)
331 1/! 1 41
(b) (6)
BRP Corporation
8905 Pensacola Place
Upper Marlboro, Maryland
Dear
20772
(b) (6)
This is .in reply to your letter dated December 6,

2000, and submitted sample of the XMG-99 prototype
rifle. Ycu have detailed the modificationo perforr.tcd
to ensure this !irearm could net !:le converted a
machinegun.
The submitted oample reoernbles a Gernan MGJ4
mach1ne9un and it 1ncorpor1ttcs cc1tain MG-34
components includ!ng the barrel, barrel Jacket , (eed
mechanism, and buttstock a~semhly
The rece . ver io
newly fabn ciir.ed ! rom al um! nL:t1 alloy and it.
incorporates a closed bolt. f1r1n9 mechanism. The
receiver has been manufactured to a dimension that is
incapable of accepting an MG-34 bolt or trigger
housing. A semiautomatic AR lS style receiver
containing a standard hRlS hammer, trigger, and
dioconnector is attached to the bottom of the XMG-99
receiver.
It
our opinion that the XMG9~ as provided. is r.ot

to ahoot automatically and l~ is not a
machinegun as defined in section 5845(b) of the
National ?irea:::ms ~ct. Due ~o ite design ar.d
construction. we aloe find that the upper receiver
is a firearm as defined in section 92l~a) (3), of
Title 18, Un1tcd State~ Code. The !act that ! t uses
an AR-15 r ece.ver as a trigger h ~us.ng does not
preclude c l asa1ficat1on of the upper receiver as a
receiver
As acse~bled, thio f1rearm has two
receiv.crs
i~
dcsign~d
WWW .14Tr.T"'"':i.cov
1678
RIP
-2-
(b) (6)
Firearms manufactured by a licen~ed manufacturer mu~t
be marked in accordance with Title 27, Code of Federal
Regula:ions, section 178.92(a) (l). Section
178. 92 la) ( l l requires tllat a licenaed rr.anufacturer
mu9t place the following t:14rks or. the !!rearm:
l.
A serial number not duplicating any aerial

number placed by the manufacturer on any
other firearni.
2.
The r.odel (if an9lgned).
3.
The caliber or gauge.
4.
The nAl:'lf: o!
5.
The city and St: lite of the ma nu fucturer.
t:hc manufacLi..rer.
We trust that: the foregoing has been responsive to

your Lnqu1ry.
I! ~e can bu of any fu:thor ass1s~an c~.
please contact un.

Sincerely
you~s.
o~~Curtis H. A. Bart~ett
1679
RIP
Document 4
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 1 of 4

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
v.
No.1:09-CV-00192-GET

)
)
SYSTEM" MACHINE GUN, SERIAL NO. Vl, )
)
Defendant.
CLAIM
NOW COMES Historic Arms LLC. (hereinafter known as "Claimant.. ) giving notice to
The United States of America and other interested parties that Claimant asserts a legal interest in
the defendant property, one Historic Arms Model 54RCCS "7.62x54R Caliber Conversion
System" Machine Gun, Serial No. Vl . Claimant objects to defendant property being referred to
as a "machine gun," because it does not fit the definition of a machine gun in the United States
Code and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Claimant has right, title and interest to the subject property in that it designed,
manufactured and submitted the property to the BATF for inspection as requested by BATF
Firearms Technology Branch Chief John Spencer.
Claimant requests the Court to acknowledge Claimant' s legal right, title and interest in
the subject firearm and Order the Plaintiff to return the item to Claimant and for such other relief
as the Court may deem just and proper, legal or equitable.
1680
RIF
Document 4
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 2 of 4
This the IO'h day of February 2009.
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
State Bar No. 516193
678-362-7650
H.M. Whitesides, Jr.*

Law Offices of
H.M. Whitesides, Jr., P.A.
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-376-6455
hmwhitesides(@whitesideslaw.com
ATIORNEYS FOR CLAIMANT
* Motion for admission pro liac vice pending
1681
RIF
Document 4
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 3 of 4
VERIFICATION
1, the undersigned, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the
foregoing and know the contents thereof; that the same is true of my own knowledge except as to
those matters stated on information and belief and as to those matters, I do believe them to be
true. I make trus declaration as the Petitioner and, as Petitioner, the facts are within my
knowledge.
Executed at Franklin, Georgia on
February~ 2009.
t> . . . .
Cai..
r
1
r e a : i''
1682
: : I,)
<J "' .
.Y C \ IJ d ;l :;: - G ; i
RIF
..
I.
Document 4
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 4 of 4
I certify that on February 10, 2009, I filed the foregoing Claim using the ECF system,
which automatically will send a copy via email to: .
G. Jeffrey Viscomi
Assistant U.S. Attorney
600 U.S. Courthouse
(404) 581 -6036
(404) 581-6234 facsmile
Jeffrey. viscomi@usdoj.gov
This the 101h day of February 2009.
/s/ John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
1683
RIF
~'
'
Case 1 :09-cv-00192-GET
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 1 of 6

ATLANTA DIVISION
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
)
)
)
No. 1:09-CV-00192-GET
Answer to Complaint for
Forfeiture
Defendant.
Historic Arms, LLC (Historic Arms), Claimant in the above entitled action,
responds to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows.
FIRST DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should
be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In response to the individual allegations contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint,
the Claimant responds as follows.
1.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint are admitted only to
the extent that this is an action to forfeit and condemn defendant property, which is incorrectly
described as a "machine gun" (a legal conclusion based on incorrect facts), as that term is
described in 26 USC 5845 (b). It is denied that defendant property is involved in a violation of
26 USC 5841 and 26 USC 5841 (d), and it is further denied that the defendant property is
subject to forfeiture.
2.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint are statements of law,
rather than fact, and therefore require no response. To the extent a response it required, it is
1684
RIF
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 2 of 6
admitted that this court has jurisdiction over this action, venue is proper in this district, and that
this is an action b1 rem to forfeit and condemn defendant property.
3.
The allegations contained in Paragraphs 3 and 4 are admitted.
4.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are admitted only to the extent that the
FTB incorrectly classified defendant property as a "machine gun."

5.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint are denied in that the
Claimant does not have sufficient information with which to admit or deny the conclusions of the
FTB. It is specifically denied that defendant property meets the definition of a "machine gun"
found in 26 use 5845 (b).
6.
The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint are admitted, except it
is denied that defendant property was properly classified as a "machine gun."

7.
In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, the
allegations are admitted, except it is denied that defendant property is properly classified as a
"machine gun" since it does not meet the definition contained in 26 USC 5845 (b). It is
admitted that the ATF attempted to have Claimant's president provide a false statement to a
government agency, a violation of 18 USC 1001, stating that defendant property was a
machine gun, when in fact Claimant' s president knew that it was not.
8.
In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, it is
admitted that Claimant's president refused to sign an amended ATF Form 2, which would have
subjected him to prosecution for providing a false statement to a government agency and/or
perjury. It is denied that defendant property is a machine gun and therefore required to be
registered pursuant to 26 USC 5841. It is further denied that since it is not a machine gun, it
cannot be returned to Claimant's president since Claimant's president is a special (occupational)
1685
RIF
Document 5
Filed 02/1 0/2009
Page 3 of 6
taxpayer, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5801,which allows Claimant's president to possess and

manufacture firearms, including machine guns. It is further denied that there is a provision in the
law to allow an already-registered firearm to be registered again.
9.
The statements in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint are recitations of law, rather
than fact, and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required, such allegations
are denied. It is specifically denied that the defendant property is subject to seizure and
forfeiture .
I 0.
In response to the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the statements
therein are conclusions of fact and law requiring no response. To the extent a response is
required, those statements are denied.
SECOND DEFENSE
The BATF Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has incorrectly classified
defendant property as a "machine gun" since the defendant property does not meet the definition
of a machine gun found in 26 USC 5845 (b) and the Code of Federal Regulations.
THIRD DEFENSE
The BATF attempted to coerce the Claimant's president into resubmitting
defendant property as a machine gun, which would have subjected Claimant's president to a
charge of perjury and/or providing false statement to a government agency, violations of 18 USC
1001. The actions of the BATF constitute attempted duress and coercion and attempted
entrapment of the Claimant's president so as to prosecute him for perjury and/or false statement.
1686
RIF
Case 1 :09-cv-00192-GET
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 4 of 6
FOURTH DEFENSE
The defendant property, even if classified as a machine gun, is not forfeitable to
the exclusion of Claimant's president because Claimant's president is a special (occupation)
taxpayer, permitted federal law to possess machine guns.
FIFTH DEFENSE
The classification and testing procedures of the BATF are inconsistent, subjective,
prejudicial and devoid of any set rules or standards for procedure and are therefore invalid. These
same testing procedures were utilized to declare defendant property a machine gun, when in fact,
it is not.
SIXTH DEFENSE
The BATF is biased against Claimant because Claimant's president has
challenged the testing procedures of the BATF in courts of law, and has testified as an expert
witness as to the negligent and faulty testing procedures employed by the BATF, causing the
BATF embarrassment, and in at least one case, reassigning or terminating of BATF personnel for
negligent testing procedures. This forfeiture action is a direct result of such bias on the part of the
BATF, and is without sufficient basis in law or fact.
1687
RIF
'
.
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 5 of 6
Wherefore the Claimant prays the court as follows:

1. to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice;
2. to tax all costs and fees to Plaintiff;
3. to award Claimant reasonable attorneys fees and costs as allowed by 28 U.S.C. 2845;
4. to return defendant property to Claimant;
5. for a jury trial on all issues of fact;
6. for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, legal or equitable.
Submitted this the 1oh day of February 2009.
/s/ John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
(678) 362-7650

Law Offices ofH.M. Whitesides, Jr., P.A.
Charlotte, NC 28203
NC State Bar No. 13151
(704) 376-6455
*Motion for Admission pro lzac vice pending
1688
RIF
..
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 6 of 6
I certify that on February l 0, 2009, I filed the foregoing Answer using the ECF system,
which automatically will send a copy via email to:
G. Jeffrey Viscomi
600 U.S. Courthouse
(404) 581-6036
(404) 581-6234 facsmile
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
1689
RIF
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 3 of 6
taxpayer, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5801,which allows Claimant's president to possess and

manufacture firearms, including machine guns. It is further denied that there is a provision in the
law to allow an already-registered firearm to be registered again.
9.
The statements in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint are recitations of law, rather
than fact, and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required, such allegations
are denied. It is specifically denied that the defendant property is subject to seizure and
forfeiture.
10.
In response to the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the statements
therein are conclusions of fact and law requiring no response. To the extent a response is
required, those statements are denied.
SECOND DEFENSE
The BATF Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has incorrectly classified

defendant property as a "machine gun" since the defendant property does not meet the definition
of a machine gun found in 26 USC 5845 (b) and the Code of Federal Regulations.
THIRD DEFENSE
The BATF attempted to coerce the Claimant's president into resubmitting

defendant property as a machine gun, which would have subjected Claimant's president to a
charge of perjury and/or providing false statement to a government agency, violations of 18 USC
1001. The actions of the BATF constitute attempted duress and coercion and attempted
entrapment of the Claimant's president so as to prosecute him for perjury and/or false statement.
1690
RIF
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 4 of 6
FOURTH DEFENSE
The defendant property, even if classified as a machine gun, is not forfeitable to
the exclusion of Claimant's president because Claimant's president is a special (occupation)
taxpayer, pennitted federal law to possess machine guns.
FIFTH DEFENSE
The classification and testing procedures of the BATF are inconsistent, subjective,
prejudicial and devoid of any set rules or standards for procedure and are therefore invalid. These
same testing procedures were utilized to declare defendant property a machine gun, when in fact,
it is not.
SIXTH DEFENSE
The BATF is biased against Claimant because Claimant's president has
challenged the testing procedures of the BATF in courts of law, and has testified as an expert
witness as to the negligent and faulty testing procedures employed by the BATF, causing the
BATF embarrassment, and in at least one case, reassigning or tenninating of BATF personnel for
negligent testing procedures. This forfeiture action is a direct result of such bias on the part of the
BATF, and is without sufficient basis in law or fact.
1691
RIF
..
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 5 of 6
Wherefore the Claimant prays the court as follows:

1. to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice;
2. to tax all costs and fees to Plaintiff;
3. to award Claimant reasonable attorneys fees and costs as allowed by 28 U.S.C. 2845;
4 . to return defendant property to Claimant;
5. for a jury trial on alt issues of fact;
6. for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, legal or equitable.
Submitted this the 101h day of February 2009.
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
(678) 362-7650

Law Offices ofH.M. Whitesides, Jr., P.A.
Charlotte, NC 28203
NC State Bar No. 13151
(704) 376-6455
*Motion for Admission pro hac vice pending
1692
RIF
..
Document 5
Filed 02/10/2009
Page 6 of 6
I certify that on February 10, 2009, I filed the foregoing Answer using the ECF system,
which automatically will send a copy via email to:
G. Jeffrey Viscomi
600 U.S. Courthouse
(404) 581-6036
(404) 581-6234 facsmile
jeffrey. viscomi@usdoj.gov
Isl John R. Monroe

John R. Monroe
1693
RIF
Document 1
Filed 01/23/2009
Page 1 of 7
fllED \N CLERK'S OFACE

u.s.o.c. -Allantl
JAN 2 3 2009
ATLANTA DIVISION
~~
-GE''['
CASEiO. 09-CV-0192
Plaintiff,
vs.
SYSTEM" MACHINE GUN, SERIAL NO. Vl,:
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR FORll'EITOR.B
Plaintiff, United States of America, by its attorneys, David

E. Nahmias, United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Georgia, and G. Jeffrey Viscomi, Assistant United States Attorney,
brings this complaint and alleges as follows:
1.
This is an action to forfeit and condemn to the use and

benefit of the united States of America one Historic Arms Model
54RCC
"7. 62x54R Caliber Conversion System"
Number Vl (hereinafter,
Machinegun,
Serial
the "Defendant Property") , as a firearm
involved in a violation of 26 U.S.C.
5841 and 586l(d)
therefore subject to forfeiture pursuant to 26
u.s.c.
and
5872.
2.
Plaintiff brings
this action in rem in its own right to
forfeit and condemn the Defendant Property pursuant to 26

5872 as a firearm .
u.s.c.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action
- ------ ---------- ------- ---------1694
--~
RIF
under 28
u.s.c.
Document 1
1345 and 1355.
pursuant to 28 U.S. C.
Filed 01 /23/2009
Page 2 of 7
Venue is proper in this district
1355 and 1395 because the Defendant
Property is located in this district.

3.
On April 21, 2008, Len Savage, the president of Historic Arms
LLC ("Historic Arms"), a federally-licensed firearms manufacturer,

filed a Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported, better known
as a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF")
Form 2.
In the ATF Form 2, Historic Arms provided notice that it
had manufactured a "Historic Arms model 54RCCS '7.62x54R Caliber

Conversion System' short-barreled rifle."
4.
On that same day it filed the ATF Form 2,
Historic Arms
submitted the Defendant Property to the ATF's Firearms Technology

Branch
("FTB")
for
technical
evaluation.
Along with
the
Defendant Property and the ATF Form 2, Savage submitted a letter,

dated April 21, 2008, in which he asked that the FTB verify that
the Defendant Property:
1) Is "[d]esigned to be fired from the shoulder,n
2) "Has a barrel length of less than 16 inches," and
3)
Is "(d] esigned for exclusive use in MAC type machineguns as
a caliber conversion system."
1695
RIF
Document 1
Filed 01/23/2009
Page 3 of 7
5.
After
the FTB completed its evaluation of the Defendant
Property, the ATF classified it as a "machinegun," as defined in 26
u. s. c.
5 8 4 5 (b) . l
6.
In coming to that conclusion, the FTB found that the Defendant

Property met the definition of "machinegun" set forth in
5845 (b),
as it was (1) the frame or receiver of a machine gun, (2) designed

to shoot automatically and/or
(3)
readily restorable to shoot
autorna:tically more than one shot, by a single function of the

trigger.
7.
ATF notified Historic Arms of its classification of the

Defendant Property as a machinegun by a letter dated June 10, 2008.
In reply, Historic Arms president Len Savage wrote the ATF, in a
letter dated June 16, 2008, and stated his belief that the ATF's
testing procedures were "not valid," that the classification of the
Defendant Property was erroneous, and that ATF should change its
classification.
B.
After the exchange of several emails between the ATF and Mr.
As defined in 26
firearms.
1
u.s.c.
5845(a) (6), all machineguns are

3
1696
RIF
Document 1
Filed 01/23/2009
Page 4 of 7
Savage, the ATF sent a letter, dated July 11, 2008, in which it
advised Savage that he needed to amend his ATF Form 2 to reflect
the Defendant Property's classification as a machinegun.
Mr.
Savage also received a second letter, from the National Firearm

Arms Act ("NFA") branch of ATF, the branch with which Savage filed
his original ATF Form 2.
In that letter, the NFA branch requested
that
ATF
Savage
amend
the
Form 2
to
reflect
Property's classification as a machinegun.
the
Defendant
Savage rejected both
recommendations, refusing to sign an amended ATF Form 2.

9.
Because of Savage's refusal to sign an amended ATF Form 2, the

Defendant Property is not a properly registered machinegun pursuant
to 26 U.S.C. 5641, and cannot be returned to Savage or Historic
Arms under 5B6l(d).
10.
Pursuant to 26
u.s.c.
SB6l(d),
~rt
shall be unlawful for any
person ... to ... possess a firearm [as defined in 26 U.S.C.
5845] which is not registered to him in the National Firearms

Registration and Transfer Record."
5872,
any firearm involved in any violation of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53,

which includes 586l(d), is subject to seizure and forfeiture.
11.
By reason of the facts set forth and incorporated herein, the

4
1697
RIF
Document 1
Filed 01 /23/2009
Page 5 of 7
Defendant Property is proper l y condemned as forfeited to the United
u.s.c.
States of America purs uant to 26
5872.
12.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a warrant

and summons for the arrest and seizure of the Defendant Property;
that notice of this act ion be given to all persons known or thought
to have an interest in or right against the Defendant Property;
that the Defendant Property be forfeited and condemned to the
United States of America ; that Plaintiff be awarded its costs and
disbursement s in this a ct ion; and that the Court award Plaintiff
such other and further relief as this Court deems proper and just .
Dated this
~3@day
of January, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
600 U.S. COURTHOUSE

75 SPRING STREET, S . W.
(404) 581-6036
(404) 581-6234
(Fax)
GEORGIA
BAR
NO.
Provisionally
admitted pursuant to local rule 83.l
1698
RIF
Document 1
Filed 01/23/2009
Page 6 of 7
RI.ED IN ClERK'S OFFICE
u.s.o.c. -A~anta
JAN 2 3 2009
ATLANTA DIVISION
JAM~C'~~L~~
v~~Clllk
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1 09-CV-0192

Defendant.
VERIFICATION
I, Special Agent John R. Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology

Branch, hereby verify and declare under penalty of perjury that I
am a Special Agent with the United States Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, that I have read the foregoing
Verified Complaint In Rem and know the contents thereof, and that
the
matters
contained
in
the
complaint
are
true
to
my own
knowledge, except that those matters not within my own personal

knowledge are alleged on information and belief, and as to those
matters I believe them to be true.
The sources of my knowledge and information and the grounds of
my belief are the official files and records of the United States,
information supplied to me by other law enforcement officers, as
well
as
my investigation of this
case,
together
with other
officers, as a Special Agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives.
1699
RIF
Document 1
Filed 01 /23/2009
Page 7 of 7
I hereby verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this
~~
day of January, 2009.
N R. SPENCER
S ECIAL AGENT
UREAU OF ALCOHOL,
TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND
EXPLOS I VES
1700
RIF
Document 1-2
Filed 01 /23/2009
Page 1 of 2

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1 09-CV-0192
Defendant.
WARRANT FOR ARREST IN REM
TO:
AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS "7. 62X54R
Caliber Conversion System" Machine Gun, Serial No. Vl

WHEREAS, on January 23, 2009, the United States of America
filed a verified complaint for civil forfeiture in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
the above-named Defendant Property, alleging that said property is
subject to seizure and civil forfeiture to the United States for
the reasons mentioned in the complaint; and
WHEREAS,
the
Defendant
property
is
currently
in
the
possession, custody, or control of the United States; and

WHEREAS, in these circumstances Supplemental Rule G(3) (b) (i)
directs the Clerk of the Court to issue an arrest warrant in rem
for the arrest of the. Defendant property; and
1701
RIF
Document 1-2
Filed 01/23/2009
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, Supplemental Rule G(3) (c} provides that the warrant

of arrest in rem must be delivered to a person or organization
authorized to execute it;
NOW THEREFORE YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to arrest the above-
named Defendant property by serving a copy of this warrant on the

custodian in whose possession, custody, or control the property is
presently found, and to use whatever means may be appropriate to
protect and maintain it in your custody until further Order of this
Court .
YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED, promptly after execution of this
process, to file the same in this Court with your return thereon,
identifying the individuals upon whom copies were served and the
manner employed.
Issued this
~-"'L~ day o (\A

...LAI ,, ~
~o
, 2009.
JAMES N. HATTEN, CLERK

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
By~,n;b~
C RK
Executed this ___ day of--------------' 2009.
AtrrHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

TITLE AND AGENCY
1702
RIF
JS
.(Rev. 05IO@o~l, 1:09-cv-00192-GET

44
Document 1-3
l 09- cv- 0l 92
Filed 01 /23/2009
CIVIL COVERSHEET
Page 1 of 2
Th JS 44 chlll cor 111..t and lhe lnlorm11Uot1 conlalnecl hetekl neither teplc nor ....,.,..ment lh ftUng and '""'lh Of plHdmg. cw olher Pllf'l'1I .. r.qull'9d by law, Hcept provided b\f
10c8l l\ll1 of court. Thi lonn la tequlred few OM,... of the Cl..tc Df COUt1 lot the~ of lf'lill1llng the Olvl doebl noonl (BEi! INBTRUCTIOH8 ATTAC!iEDI
I (a)
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
United States of America
One Historic Anna Modal 54RCCS '7.62XS4R Callber Conver1lon

By1tem" M1chln19un, Sertal No. V1
(b)
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
(c)
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN
G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
United Statea Attorney's Office

600 Richard Rusaell Federal Building

AUanta, Georgia 30303
404-581-8036
Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCJPAL PARTIES

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
1
02
U.S. Government
Plalntlff
03
U.S. Govammant
04
Defendant
IV. ORIGIN
1 ORIGINAL
(PLACE AH "X" IH ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF AND OHE 8011 fOR Ol!FENOANT)
(FOR DM!RSITY CASES ONLY)
Federal Question
PTF DF
(U.S. 0-1mmonl Hot 1 1'1rty)
Cltlnft Of Thi SlaU
Dlveralty
Citizen Df Anothr Slit
(lndlcall CIU..n1hlp ol
Partlftlnlt""' mt
Cllbtn Ill' 8ubject oh
o1 o1
lnctlrpot.iKI ar Prtnclpal PlaQ

of Bualneu In Thie Blall
C 2 C 2 lncorpor.tllcl 11nd Prlnc:lpal Plce
or Bua.._. In Anothel' l'ln

0 S 0 S F0telgrt Nalillfl
PTF DEF
o4 a 4
C OI
CI CI
Foreign Country
(Pl.ACEANXINONEBOXONLY)
02 RellOVEDFROM
MAGIS'TRATI!
PROCEEDING
c 4 REINSTATEll OR
D S REMANOl!D FROM
STAT!! COURT
APPEUATECOURT
REOPENED
TRANSFERRED FROM
D r ANOTHER DISTRICT
APPEAL TO DISTRICT
DI MULTlOISTRICT
(SPECIFY Dt811UCTI
UTIGATION
O 7 JUDGE FROM
JUOGI! JUOGMl!HT
v. CAUSE OF ACTION ICtTe

Tl1E U.S. CML STATUE UNDER WlllCH YOU AREFlt.ING ANO WRITE A BRIEF BTATl!Ml!NT "" CAUSe. t>O NOT CITI! JURISl>lc;TIONAL
STATUTES UNLU8 DIVl!RSllY.)
By vtrtue of 28 U.S.C.1345, 1355, and 1395.
(IF COMPLEX, CHECK REASON BELOW)
) 1. Unusually large num!Mr of partle1.
) I . Problem locating or pro1ervlng evidence.
) 2. Unua ually large number of claims or dfnHt.
I 7. Pending peralll lnvntlgetlon or 1ct1on1 by 9ovemm11nt
) 3. F1ctu1l 111u11 are excepllon111y complex.
) 8. MulUple UH
) 4. G,.atar lhn normal volum of 1vldence.
) 9. Need for dltconry outside United Stat,. boundart
) Ii. Extended dl1conry period 11 needed.
I 10.
of llptrtl.
Eal1tenc1 of highly tec:hnlcal l11u11 and proof.
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
1703
RIF
VI. NATUREmleSW9'-(Wl:lQSNGlffiif ONSBOlDW(j-3

CONTRACT "O MONTHS DISCOVERY
IMl1
( ) 150 RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT &

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT
) 152RECOVERV OF DEFAULTED STUDENT
LOANS (EXCL VETERANS)
) 153 RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT OF
VETERAN'S BENEFITS
CONTRACT 4 MONTHS DtSCOVEffY
~
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
) 110 INSURANCE
) 120 MARINE
) 130 MILLER ACT
) 140 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
) 151 MEDICARE ACT
) 11!0 STOCKHOLDER'S SUITS
) ISO OTHER CONTRACT
) 195 CONTRACT PRODUCT LIABILITY
) 1SIB FRANCHISE
REAL PROPERTY 4 MONlHS DISCOVERY

~
( ) 210 LAND CONDEMNATION
( ) 220 FORECLOSURE
( l 230 RENT LEASE & EJECTMENT
( ) 240 TORTS TO LAND
( ) 245 TORT PRODUCT LIABILITY
( ) 2QO ALL OTHER REAL PROPERTY
TORTS PERSONAL. INJURY 4" MONTHS
p!SCOVERY TRACK
( ) 310AlRPlANE
( ) 315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT LIABILITY
( ) 3~0 ASSAULT, LIBEL & SLANDER
( ) 330 FEDERAL EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
( ) 340 MARINE
( ) 3411 MARINE PRODUCT LIABILITY
( ) 350 MOTOR VEHICLE
( ) 355 MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCT LIABILITY
( ) 31!0 OTHER PERSONAL INJURY
( ) 362 PERSONAL INJURY MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE
) 365 PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCT
LIABILITY
) 368ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
PRODUCT LIABILITY
TORTS PERSONAL PROPERTY "4"
MOHTHSDlSCOVERYTRACK
( } 370 OTHER FRAUD
( ) 371 TRUTH IN LENDING
{ ) 380 OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY
DAMAGE
) 385 PROPERlY DAMAGE PRODUCT
LIABILITY
Flied 01 /23/2009
BANKRUP!CY o MONTHS DISCOVERY

~
( ) 422 APPEAL 2B use 158
( ) 423 WITHDRAWAL 2B USC 1117
CIVIL RIGHTS 4 MONTHS DISCOVERY
~
( ) 441 VOTING
( ) 442 EMPLOYMENT
( ) 443 HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS
( ) 444 WELFARE
( ) 440 OTHER CML RIGHTS
( ) 445 AMERICANS w1111 DISABLmES
Employment
( ) 446 AMERICANS with DISABUTIES
Other
PRISONER PETITIONS "O" MONlHS

DISCOVERY TRACK
( ) 510 MOTIONS TO VACATE SENTENCE
( ) 530 HABEAS CORPUS
( ) 535 HABEAS CORPUS DEATH PENALTY
( ) 540 MANDAMUS & OTHER
( ) 550 CML RIGHTS (Flllld Pro Se)
( ) 540 PRISON CONOITION(S) (Flied Pro Se)
PRISONER PETmONS "4" MON!J1S
DISCOVERY TRACK
( ) 550 CIVIL RIGHTS (Flied by Coun111)
( ) 555 PRISONERS CONDfTIONS [Filed
byCounsel)
FORFE!!YREIPENALTY "4" MONTHS
DISCOVERY TRACK
( )610AGRICULTURE
( ) 620 FOOD & DRUG
( ) 625 DRUG RELATED SEIZURE OF
PROPERTY 21 use Bll1
( ) 630 LIQUOR LAWS
( ) 1140 R.R. & TRUCK
( ) 650 AIRLINE REGS.
( ) eeo OCCUPATIONAL SAFE'TYIHEALTH
( )l!llOOTHER
Page 2 of 2
SQC!Al SECURITY MO" MONTHS DISCOVER't

TRACK
( ) M1 HIA (1311!511)
{ ) 1Je2 BLACK LUNG (1123)
( ) 883 DIWC (406{0))
( ) 663 DrNW [405(g))
{ ) 864 SSID TITLE XVI
( ) 885 RSI (405{g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS "4" MONlHS

DISCOVERY TRACK
( ) 870 TAXES (U.S. PLAINTIFF OR
DEFEND ENT}
( ) 1171 IRS THIRD PARTY 26 USC 780G
OlHER STATUTES 4 MONTHS DISCOVERY
~
( ) 400 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT
( ) 430 BANKS & BANKING
( ) 450 COMMERCE/ICC RATESIECT.
( ) 460 DEPORTATION
( ) .1170 RACKETEER INFLUENCED ANO
CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
I 480 CONSUMER CREDrr
) 490 CABLE ISATELLITE TV
I 810 SELECTIVE SERVICE
) 875 CUSTOMER CHALLENGE 12 USC
S410
) 8G1 AGRJCULTURAL ACTS
) 892 ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT
) 8113 ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
) SIM ENERGY ALLOCATION ACT
) 8115 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
) 900 APPEAL OF FEE DETERMINATION
UNDER EQUAL ACCESS TO
JUSTICE
( ) 11eo CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE
STATUTES
( ) 890 OTHER STATUTORY ACTIONS
OTHER STATUTES "B" MONTHS DISCOVERY

~
( ) 410ANTITRUST
( ) 850 SECURITIES J COMW)DmES J
LABOR 4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK

( ) 710 FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
( ) 720 LA80R/MGMT. RELATIONS
( ) 730 LABOR/MGMT. REPORTING &
DISCLOSURE ACT
) 740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT
( ) 7110 OTHER LABOR LITIGATION
{ ) 7G1 EMPL. RET. INC. SECURiTY ACT
OTHER SIATUTES "O" MONTHS DISCOVERY

~
( )
ARBITRATION
(CONFIRWVACATEJORDERJMODIFY)
PROPERTY RIGHTS "4" MONTHS

[>ISCOVERY TRACK
! ) 1120 COPYRIGHTS
( ) 840 TRADEMARK
*PLEASE NOTE DISCOVERY
PROPERTY RIGHTS M8" MONTHS

DISCOVERY TRACK
( ) B3D PATENT
EXCHANGE
(Note: PIHH ITlllrll undmrtyil'l11 NtlJr 0 f Sult

.. Wiiii)
TRACK FOR EACH CASE

TYPE. SEE LOCAL RULE
26.3
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

( ) CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.Civ.P. 23
DEMANDS
JURY DEMAND ( l YES ( )NO (CHECK YES ONLY IF DEMANDED IN COMPLAIN'!)
VIII. RELATED/REFILED CASE(S) IF ANY

JUDGE
DOCKET NO.
CIVIL CASES ARE DEEMED RELATED IF THE PENDING CASE INVOLVES: (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX)
( ) 1. PROPERlY INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED PENDING SUIT.
( ) 2. SAME ISSUE OF FACT OR ARISES OUT OF THE SAME EVENT OR TRANSACTION INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED
PENDING SUIT.
) 3. VALIDITY OR INFRINGEMENT OF THE SAME PATENT, COPYRIGHT OR TRADEMARK INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED
PENDING SUIT.
) 4. APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME BANKRUPTCY CASE AND ANY CASE RELATED THERETO WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY
THE SAME BANKRUPTCY JUDGE.
) 5. REPETITIVE CASES FILE BY fBQ..5 LITIGANTS
( ) 6. COMPANION OR RELATED CASE TO CASE(S) BEING SIMULTANEOUSLY FILED (INCLUDE ABBREVIATED STYLE OF OTHER CASE(S)):
( ) 7. EITHER SOME OR ALI. OF.JHE PARTIES AND ISSUES IN THIS CASE WERE PREVIOUSLY INVOLVED IN CASE
NO.
--;:?
1704
RIF
In The Matter Of:

United States ofAmerica v.
One History Arms Model 54RCCS, etc.
\
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

52 Executive Park South
Suite 5201
Atlanta, Georgia 30329-2217
(404) 892-1331 - (800) 445-2842
Original File 58953.TXT
:\lin-U-ScripL!! "ith \\"ord lndc::\
1715
RIF
1716
RIF
"
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page3
IN THB UNITED STATBS DISTRICT COURT

POR THB NORTHERN DISTRICT OP GBORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
)
)
I
v.
)
l
ONB HISTORY ARMS HODBL
)
54RCCS 7.62X54R CALIBBR)
COlfVSRSION IYSTllJI"
)
HACBINI: G'ON, SERIAL NO. )
Vl,
)
Defendant.
)
C0 NT B NT I
BX AK I NAT I 0 N
UNITED STATIS OP AllKRICA,)

Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION PILE

NO. 1109-CV-0192-GIT
Pa;e
baaination by Kr . llanroa
lxaaination hy Kr. Vhcoai
90
BXbIBITS
FOR Tb1I CLAIXANT SAVAGB1
8
9
~~~~~~~~~~-'
The depoition of RICKARD VASQtJEZ, teken

on hehelf of th Cleiaant savage, purauant to th
11
Pireara. Bnforc ...ant Progr...
12
u.s. DepartJHnt of Jutice Mao dated
14
purpo of cro-exlllllination and dicovery and any
17
othar purpo authorized by th Federal Rule of
18
Civil Procedure1 th reading and aigning of th
19
20
21
commencing at 10105 a.m., on thia, th 10th day of

Sapteml:ler, 2009, at American Court Raporting, 52
Bxacutiva Park Drive, Atlanta, Gaorgia.
9/3/09 to Aiatant Dnitad State

Attorneya, Jeffrey Viacoai froa Aaaiatant
Chief, Pirear1aa Technology Branch1
aubject1 report of examination on
PkJl-Type Nachinegun Sul:laitted by Lan
lavage, Hiatoric Araa, LLC
13
15
16
simaon, Ragiatered Profeaaional Reporter,
Letter to Lan Savage ragarding evaluation

of machine gun
Latter dated 1/11/08 to Mr. Len lavage

frOID John R. Spencer, Chief, Pirearaa
Technology Branch
APPBARAHCBS
Por th Plaintiff
22
24
25
5
6
7
10
11
12
14
15
For th Claimant savagat

JOHN R. XONROB, BSQDIRB
9640 Col ...n Road
Roavell, Georgia 30075
('78) 362-7650
1-mailt jobn.1110nrolearthlink.net
17
18
19
20
21
Alo Preaant1
Len Savage, Claimant
22
23
24
25
'li11-l -~ni11t(li;
PROCEEDINGS
RICHARD VASQUEZ,
3
having been duty sworn, was examined and
4
s
CROSS-EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. MONROE:
7
Q Would you please state your name?
A Richard Vasquez.
8
9
Q Have you ever given a deposition before?
10
A Yes, I have.
11
Q Under what circumstances?
12
A On behalf of ATF? Is that what you mean?
13
Q In any circumstances.
14
A Three depositions on behalf of ATF.
15
Q Were those civil cases?
16
A No, all three were criminal.
17
Q Any other instances where you've given
18 one?
A No.
19
20
Q Just a couple of things to keep in mind.
21 There's a court reporter here taking down what we
22 say, so if you could wait until I finish asking a
23 question before you answer it so she doesn't have to
24 try to, you know, have us talking over each other
25 and be able to transcribe that appropriately.
1
JAMBS P. VANN, BSQDIRE

Diviion Counel, Waahington Pield Div.
D.S. DEPARTKBNT OP JUSTICE
UNITED STATBS ATTORNEY'S OPPICB
1401 H. Street, N.W.
Waahington, D.C. 20005
13
Page4
HAJUtY R. POSTBR, III, ESQDIRB

DBPART1111NT OP JUSTICB
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
Firearm & Bxploaiv
Atlanta, Gaorgia 30345
(404) 417-2696
16
COtlNSEL1
O. J11PPRBY VISCONI , BSQDIRE

Aitant Dnitad state Attorney
D.S. DBPARTXllNT OP JUSTICB
'ONITED STATBS ATTORNBY'S OPPICB
75 Spring Straat, s.w.
Suite 600
(4041 581-6036
B-iaail1 jeffrey.vicoaieuadoj.gov
65
23
Page2
or
Identified
10
atipulation agreed to herein, taken for th
depoaition being rrvd1 taken before Alice E.
l>ecripticon
Piraara Technology Branch - Standard

]5
Operating Procedure for th Bxamination
of Non-Evidentiary Fireera Sample
1717
(I) Page 2 - Page 4
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

One History Arms Model S4RCCS, etc.
Page5
Page7
Ifl ask a yes or no question, make sure

l
that you say "yes" or "no" rather than move your
2
3 head or say uh-huh or huh-uh because those things
3
4 are difficult to take down. If I ask a question
4
5 that you don't understand or that you want
5
6 clarification on, you know, by all means tell me you
6
7 don't understand it or ask for clarification,
7
e otherwise the assumption will be that you do
e
9 understand the question and that you're answering it
9
10 appropriately. Okay?
10
11
A Okay.
ll
12
Q All right. If you need to take a break
12
13 while we're going along, just say so, we can do
13
14 that. If you need a drink or anything or to stretch
u
15 your legs, just say so.
15
16
Any other questions or anything?
16
17
A No.
17
18
Q Where are you employed?
18
19
A I'm employed by the Bureau of Alcohol
19
20 Tobacco & Fireanns. My place of employment is at 20
21 Martinsburg, West Virginia.
21
22
Q And what's your position there?
22
23
A I'm the assistant chief and I'm a Firearms
23
24 Enforcement Officer.
24
25
Q Assistant chief of what?
25
l
infantry weapons repairman and I did security forces

duty in Naples, Italy, I did embassy duty which is on
loan to the State Department for three years. I was a
detachment commander of the Marine Corps, Marine
detachment at two embassies. I was a Marine recruiter
three years out of my career and I deployed to
southwest Asia as a weapons instructor. I deployed to
Columbia, South America as a weapons instructor. Did
a wide variety of things.
Q What was the highest rank you achieved in
the Marines?
A Master Sergeant E-8.
Q And is that the rank you had when you
separated?
A When I retired I was a Master Sergeant.
Q So you're retired?
A Yes, I am.
Q Were you honorably discharged?
A Yes, lam.
Q Could you please describe what your duties
are in your current position with the ATF?
A In my current position as the assistant
chief, if the supervisor, the chief, is not there,
then I supervise the office. I also provide the
training, the technical training, to all of the
Page 6
Pages
A Of the Firearms Technology Branch.
Q How long have you had that position?
A Since 2003.
Q What did you do before that?
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A I was a Firearms Enforcement Officer with

ATF.
Q How long did you do that?
A I did it from 1999 to 2003.
Q What did you do before that?
A Prior to that I worked for Diplomatic
Security Service from 1996, '97 through 1999 as a
firearms instructor.
Q What is the Diplomatic Security Service?
A Diplomatic Security Service is the special
agents of the Department of State, they provide for
security for nil of the embassies and they provide
security for the Secretary of State and all visiting
dignitaries that are not of the president or the king
status.
Q So you were a State Department employee?
A Yes, I was.
Q And before that what did you do?
A I had a 21-year Marine Corps career.
Q And what did you do in the Marines?
A A variety of things. My basic MOS was an
Page S ~ Page 8 (2)
5
6
7
8
g
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
firearms enforcement officers, which there's a total

of eight. I testify in federal trials on behalf of
ATF, I do technical evaluations for our ATF special
agents in criminal cases. I do technical evaluations
for the general public for manufacturers. I do import
evaluations, if an importer wants to import an item
and he's not sure it's importable, I do an evaluation.
And I monitor the work flow in the office.
Q With regard to the things you just
described that were evaluations, are those things
that you actually do yourself or do you supervise
other people that do it, or both?
A Do both.
Q Okay. Are you also an FEO?
A Yes, I'm a Firearms Enforcement Officer.
Q Your CV talks about having eight firearms
enforcement officers; is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you're one of those?
A No, I'm the ninth.
Q Okay. And then I've seen other documents
in the case that reference technicians and analysts
I think in FTB, are those terms used interchangeably
with firearms enforcement officers?
A They are in the general public in the
1718
RIF
I\

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
ll
12
13
14
15
l.6
17
l.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
industry we always try to use the tenn Fireanns

Enforcement Officer.
Q So if there are documents especially
internal ATF documents talking about analysts at FTB
doing this or that, that's the same as an FEO?
A We would have to look at that document to
detennine if it was an FEO because we do have a
program analyst who has the responsibility of doing
administrative functions in the office. And if I saw
the document I would know whether it was attributed to
a Fireanns Enforcement Officer or to our program
analyst, which our program analyst does not evaluate
evidence or samples.
Q Okay. So the program analyst is an
administrative function, is that what you're saying?
A That's correct.
Q So ifthere were a discussion of something
that an analyst did that were related to evaluating
or inspecting a fireann, that would probably be an
FEO?
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you describe your educational
background, please?
A I have a high school diploma and I'm
currently a 54-year-old college student, finally
Page 11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
parts, we took basic receivers. I instructed, like I

said as the chief instructor, I instructed the
production of the Marine Corps sniper rifle. I was
involved and was the lead in developing and
implementing the Barrett SO caliber sniper rifle which
I introduced during the first Gulf War into the hands
of Marine Corps snipers in a combat environment.
Worked hand-in-hand with Ronnie Barrett to facilitate
this process. Was a custom fireanns through the
Marine Corps, had my own private gunsmith business
when I retired from the Marine Corps and built custom
fire rifles for clients.
Q Did you design those rifles that you made
privately?
A We would not actually design the receivers,
but we would design parameters around it. What type
ofbarrell, what type of stock. How we're going to
make it more accurate, how we're going to make it more
functional. I was involved with the MI 6A2 program in
1982. I was the Headquarters Marine Corps
representative as a staff sergeant for the Marine
Corps to introduce the M16A2 into the Marine Corps
with Sixth Marine Regiment of the Second Marine
Division.
Q In that manufacturing experience, did that
Page 10
trying to finish up my college degree. I have many,

many, many years of technical schools, I'm a certified
machinist through the Army's machinist program. I
have been through most civilian gunsmith schools:
s Glock, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Beretta, H&K, just on
6 and on.
7
Q Those last, the manufacturer's schools you
8 talked about, those were for being something like a
9 certified annorer or something of that effect?
10
A That is correct.
Q Okay. For all of those that you named?
ll
12
A Yes.
13
Q Where are you going to college right now?
14
A l'm going to Lord Fairfax Community College.
15
Q And what are you studying there?
l.6
A Right now just general studies, I just have
17 two more courses to finish.
18
Q Do you have any experience manufacturing
19 fireanns?
20
A Yes, I do.
Q Can you describe that experience, please?
21
22
A I was the chief instructor of the Marine
23 Corps Precision Weapons Facility in Quantico, Virginia
24 at one of my tours in the Marine Corps. And we
25 fabricated all special tools, we fabricated special
l
2
3
4
'liu-l - ~wript<l!
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l.4
15
16
17
l.8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consist of assembling pre-manufactured parts, or did

it also consist of manufacturing or making
modifications to parts?
A It would have included both.
Q Okay. Do you have any experience
classifying fireanns?
A Yes, I do.
Q Could you describe that, please?
A One of my jobs as a Firearms Enforcement
Officer and as the assistant chief of ATF is to
classify fireanns under the Gun Control Act, National
Firearms Act, Arms Export Control Act, which regulates
importation of fireanns. I received that training
since coming to ATF as on-the-job training through our
chief at the time, Ed Owen, Kurt Bartlett, our legal
counsel, our industry operations personnel, our
National Firearms Act personnel. All branches of ATF
we received training to ensure that we understood the
regulations.
And as far as functioning of fireanns,
function of the fireanns was taught to me through my
long career in firearms and on-the-job training as I
was hired by ATF in the Firearms Technology Branch.
Q Do you have experience testing fireanns?
A Yes, I do.
1719
(3) Page 9 - Page 12
RIF
Unlled Slales of America v.

Richard Vasquez
Seplember 10, 2009
1
2
3
4
Page 13
Page 15

A My whole time as a Marine in the weapons
program, every single fireann that we developed for
the Marine Corps snipers or the Marine Corps Rifle
expertise of the person who did the work, we have to

make a visual detennination. But we also do a head
space check, which it measures the chamber. And once
4 again, the majority of it is a visual inspection of
s the firearm to see if it's safe to fire.
6
Q Does that mean that it's somewhat
7 subjective whether a firearm is safe to fire?
a
A I think ... that's a good question. That
9 regardless of what industry you're in, subjectiveness
10 comes into play. If I was to send it to H.P. White
11 Lab, which is a professional world-renowned
12 organization to do a test fire, they would make a
13 detennination whether they were going to fire that
14 firearm or not. And we have to have that ability to
15 make a determination whether we shoot a firearm or
16 not. So yes, subjectiveness does come into play.
17
Q You mentioned a text fixture, what is
18 that?
19
A A vice where we can clamp a fireann in place
20 and remotely fire it if necessary, or fire it behind a
21 shield.
22
Q Does the FTB have n test laboratory?
23
A Our facility is considered a technology
24 branch. So do we have a laboratory like a lab that
2s does DNA, absolutely not. We have a facility like a
5 Team or Pistol Team was tested and evaluated. We used
H.P. White Lab to do specific stress tests, chamber

pressure tests. Every single fireann that left our
s facility had to be tested and evaluated and shoot a
9 certain size group before it ever went into the hands
10 of a Marine Corps sniper.
11
Since that, obviously with the Diplomatic
12 Security Service I was instrumental in introducing
13 the M4 carbine into the hands of the special agents
14 with Diplomatic Security. We did a prolonged test
1s on a variety of different Ml 6s, there were different
16 manufacturers, and we eventually accepted the Colt
17 MI 6A2 M4 carbine. And then with ATF after I was
18 involved with the implementation of the 40 caliber
19 pistol into the hands of our special agents and with
20 the introduction of the M4 carbine into the hands of
21 our special agents once I came to work for ATF.
22
Q Do you have any experience testing
23 fireanns as an FEO?
24
A Yes. And I would like to know what you mean
25 by testing.
6
2
3
Page 14
Page 16
Q By testing I would mean in the process of

inspecting or evaluating a firearm, test firing it
3 to see how it functions, if it functions, how well
4 it functions, things like that.
5
A Yes, I do.
6
1
A We evaluate the fireann, ensure if it's safe
s to fire. If it requires a test fire, we test fire it.
9 If we classify it using the Gun Control Act, whether
10 it's a sporting fireann or a machine gun, we use the
11 National Fireanns Act to classify whether it's a
12 machine gun or a weapon regulated by the National
13 Fireanns Act.
14
Q How do you detennine if a fireann is safe
15 to fire?
16
A The majority of it is visual. We look at
17 the firearm. If it's been ... we use the tenn cobbled
18 together, if it's been welded poorly, if it looks like
19 it may break, then we'll make the detennination
20 whether we fire it or not. If we think we need to
21 fire it regardless, we'll put it in a vice, shoot it
22 from a test fixture so that one becomes injured. But
23 we attempt to fire -- in a criminal case firearms that
24 are submitted regardless of what they look like,
2s samples that are submitted because we don't know the
gunsmith's facility would be, like a manufacturing

facility would be. So we do have a facility to test
3 firearms.
4
Q What does that consist of, that facility?
5
A We have a lathe, a mill machine, a welder.
6 We have a completely enclosed test fire facility.
7
Q When you say completely enclosed, what do
a you mean by that?
9
A We have a test fire facility that was built
10 with 360 degree bullet proof capabilities up to 50
11 caliber.
12
Q I see. Is there a person who's in charge
13 of or responsible for that facility?
14
A Adam Galbraith, one of our FEO's, has been
15 assigned as the maintenance person. Everybody in our
16 office has collateral duties. I wrote the initial use
17 of the range, but obviously after I got promoted I
18 didn't have the time to maintain it. So one of our
19 FEO's maintains our range, does our quarterly
20 cleaning, whatever's required of maintaining a range.
21
Q Does the facility have any kind of
22 certifications or anything like that?
23
A Absolutely. We are on a schedule that once
24 a quarter an outside organization comes in, does lead
25 tests, cleans the facility, ensures that the
Page 13 - Page 16 (4)
1720
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page 17
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
lB
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
commercially installed shooting backsplash is up to

speed.
Q What is that organization?
A I would have to contact the people to ...
they just contact us through our security personnel,
say they're coming in and they get clearance and they
come in, and I would have to get the name of the
organization.
Q Okay. And you said ... weU, what kind of
certification do they give then?
A They certify for air cleanliness and they
certify our impact area, they certify air flow. What
arc you asking? What are you trying to get at? What
type of certification do you want to know whether we
have or do not have?
Q I was just asking it on an open-ended
basis what kind of certifications, if any, the
facility has.
A (Nods head affinnatively).
Q Are there any other ... well, let me
rephrase that. The certifications you're describing
sound like they have to do with health and safety;
is that accurate?
A Correct.
Q Does the facility have any other
Page 19
2
3
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
supervise all the Fireanns Enforcement Officers. On a

daily basis one if not many of them will come to me
and say I have a question. Come look at this. I need
to know which direction I should go. Max Kingery came
to me on this case and said, you know, which direction
do we go. He would give me his opinion, then I'd
either agree, which 1 did agree with his opinions. So
I looked at it as a supervisor and as a mentor.
Q Let's back up a couple of steps and try to
address it in somewhat chronological order. At some
point the defendant was received by FTB from Mr.
Savage; is that right?
A Correct.
Q Was it shipped directly to FTB or did it
go to some other branch first?
A No, it came to FTB.
Q And then do you know what the process was
in tenns of how it was received and then what was
done with it?
A When it comes in, we have an evidence tech,
and that's his title, his government job description
is evidence technician. So he receives anything that
comes in the office that appears to be, looks like a
firearm or a component of a fireann. General mail
goes to someone else.
Page 18
2
3
4
s
6
7
B
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
certifications?
A In what aspect?
Q In terms of, you know, things like an
audit of the way the facility's used or the
procedures used or anything like that.
A Meaning the test facility or the entire
fireanns technology branch?
Q No, the test facility.
A No, we don't have an audit that someone
comes in and says it's being used incorrectly or
improperly.
Q Okay. Now, in this particular case, I
believe it was Mr. Kingery who did the inspection
and testing of the defendant; is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Were you involved in his inspection and
testing?
A I was involved in like an overseeing manner.
When he ever had questions he would come to me and ask
for guidance. So yes, I was involved.
Q I don't want to put words in your mouth
but it sounds like what you're saying is your
involvement was as a supervisor or overseeing his
work; is that accurate?
A Well, let me go one step further. I
\lin-l -~nipt~
Page 20
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
l4
15
16
17
18
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
So it comes in to the evidence technician

and he logs it in, data was received. And he does
an assignment of who that'll go to. So is that the
question you had?
Q Yes. And the evidence technician is one
of the people that reports to you; is that right?
A Correct.
Q And what's his name?
A Guy Snyder.
Q So Mr. Snyder received the defendant,
logged it in. And then you said he assigns it to
whom it goes, you mean to the FEO?
A Correct. We have -- our system isn't very
complicated. He looks at who has how many items
assigned, he looks at who's out of the office for
days, weeks at a time, and the next person available
gets the next item that comes in.
Q So Mr. Snyder assigned the defendant to
Max Kingery?
A Correct.
Q Okay. And if you don't know the answers
to some of these questions, just say so.
Then Mr. Snyder then would make
arrangements for it to be physically transferred to
Mr. Kingery? I mean, and I don't know what the
1721
(S) Page 17 - Page 20
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

Page21
Page 23
layout of the building is or anything, but I guess

it comes in, Mr. Snyder looks at it, assigns the
J case to Mr. Kingery, then what actually happened to
4 the defendant, do you know?
5
A Yes, what happens is we have -- Mr. Snyder
6 has a secure lock-up facility where he keeps
7 everything until it's assigned to some person. And
e then the FEO has a secure facility where he assigns
9 his items that he's working on.
10
Q Okay.
11
A What he does, he gives a folder to the FEO,
12 he writes out a cover sheet and it goes to the FEO and
13 the FEO -- and assigns it a number. So when the FEO
14 gets it, he's got a cover sheet with just a, you know,
15 obscure identification of what the item is and a
16 number and then he puts a number on the box.
17
So when the FEO comes up to Guy and says
le look, I need a pickup, these assignments I just had,
19 I've got 2008-124, 124 being the 124th item we've
20 received that year. And then he'll hand him that
21 item, then he begins his work on it or puts it in
22 his storage department.
23
Q So then after Mr. Kingery took possession
24 of the defendant, how would he have known what he
25 should do it with it?
a bnrrell less than 16 inches, was it a short barrell

rifle. And I instructed him to evaluate it in its
entirety.
4
Q And what does that mean?
s
A Look at the entire item, make a
6 classification on what it really is.
7
Q If the defendant was submitted with a
e request to determine if it's a short barreled rifle,
9 why would your guidance have been to do a complete
10 classification?
ll
A We have a responsibility not only to ATF, we
12 have a responsibility to the public, to the
l3 manufacturer who submits an item, and that's our
14 responsibility to look at this and make a judgment
15 call. Are we going to -- a person sends in a stick of
16 dynamite, classify this as a firecracker. That's a
17 way-beyond analogy, but we're going to look at this
18 item in its entirety. A person sends - we have
19 manufacturers and importers on a daily basis submit
20 items and we end up with a totally different
21 classification of what they think it's going to be.
22
Q When Mr. Kingery came to you for guidance,
23 did he bring the defendant with him? I mean, did he
24 show it to you?
25
A As I can recollect, he actually called me to
Page22
Page24
2
3
l
A Generally the person sends in a letter of
what they want done to the item. So if I were to send 2
in an item to Fircanns Technology Branch that I wanted 3
4 evaluated, I would -- because I wanted to evaluate
4
5 it -- I would send in a letter of what I want looked
s
6 at or whatever. On many occasions we receive items
6
7 with very little information, we have to call the
7
e person back and say you've sent this in to us, what
e
9 are we supposed to do. And that does happen on
9
10
10 occasion.
11
So he has a guidance of what to do from
11
12 the person. Knows it's not a criminal case, he
12
13 knows it's a sample that's been submitted for
13
14 evaluation. If he has a question, he'll either come
14
15 to myself or John Spencer and say, look, I've got
15
16 this item in for request or for evaluation and these
16
17 are the parameters they want me to evaluate it on,
17
18 what should I do. And then we'll give them further
lB
u guidance.
u
20
Q Did Mr. Kingery come to you in this
20
21 particular case and ask for guidance?
21
22
A Yes, he did.
22
23
Q And what guidance did he seek?
23
24
A The request was to evaluate it, if it was a
24
25 -- basically was it a short barrell rifle, did it have
2s
l
2
3
Page 21 - Page 24 (6)
his work space and I just walked to his work space and
the item was there.
Q So did you make your guidance decision
based in part on your visual observation of the
defendant?
A The visual observation of the defendant and
a letter of request.
Q Then while Mr. Kingery was doing his
complete classification, did he come to you for any
other guidance or question?
A Let me add something to an earlier question.
Q Okay.
A You know, you asked the question if a person
sends in a request for an evaluation, do we only -and I'm paraphrasing, do we only do that evaluation or
do we do further evaluation. When the letter says
measure the fireann and I've registered it as a short
barrell rifle, you have to understand that the
definition of a rifle under the Gun Control Act says
it's designed to be fired from the shoulder. So it's
a very easy call when an item has a barren and no
receiver that it's not a rifle right away. So Max it
wasn't a rifle, I knew it wasn't a rifle. So of
course we do a complete evaluation to identify exactly
what we have and to make a complete classification.
1722
l\lin-t:-Scripl \4
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page 25
Q I just want to make sure you didn't

misspeak just then. You said it had a barrell and
3 no receiver, is that what you meant to say?
4
A A barrel! and no stock. If I said receiver,
s I did misspeak.
6
Q Okay.
7
A It had no stock attached to it. So it
e couldn't have been a rifle because it wasn't designed
9 to be fired from the shoulder.
lO
Q So then following up on that, you made
l l your guidance to do a complete classification in
12 part because you observed that there was no shoulder
13 stock?
14
A Yes.
15
Q All right. Then going back to where we
16 were, after you gave that guidance to Mr. Kingery,
17 did he come to you for any further guidance or
lB questions as he was doing his classification?
19
A Yes. There's a few FEO's that generally
20 come to me a lot through their course of writing their
21 report. And Max is one of those guys, he's very, very
22 conscientious of the technical writing that he wants
23 to do. So instead of doing a rough draft and us
24 chopping it, he would call me to his desk and say, you
25 know, what do you think the way this is worded, how do
Page27
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asked and you were just giving examples of things he

might have asked; is that right?
A I would say that those are most likely the
things that he asked me.
Q Okay. But you don't recall specifically?
A No.
Q Do you recall how many instances he asked
you a question?
A I would say more than once and a few.
Q Do you know over what period of time this
classification took place that he did?
A No, I don't. Because there was other things
going on in the office so Max was in and out of the
office.
Q Okay. Then at some point I guess he
completed his classification; is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And then did he do anything ... I mean,
we'll take his deposition later and I'll ask him
what he did, but did he come back to you after his
classification was done and discuss it with you?
A I'm trying to ensure that I word this
correctly. When it was complete we obviously had our
chief counsel review it. And so then it came back
with edits. And we sat down and discussed which edits
Page 28
Page26
you think this is worded. How about this regulation

and this statute. So on several occasions as he was
3 evaluating this firearm, then I went to him and he
4 consulted with me.
5
Q Do you recall what the substance of those
6 consultations were?
7
A I do not.
a
Q You don't recall any of them?
9
A In general that's what I just said, he'd
10 call me over for technical questions, you know, those
l l technical questions could be: Do you think it's a
12 machine gun receiver? Do you think it fires from the
13 open bolt? Do you think it's belt fed? So when I say
14 a technical classification, those are what I'm talking
15 about.
16
So for clarity for you, even though I
17 don't recollect our entire conversation, if he asked
18 me for technical guidance it would be subjects like
19 do I think it's a machine gun, do I think it fires
20 open bolt, do I think it fires with a belt fed, what
21 do I think it's really designed for.
22
Q I just want to make sure we distinguish
23 between what he might have asked and what he did. I
24 mean, I don't want to be argwnentative. But I think
25 you said you don't recall any of the questions he
l
'lin-l-'wriptQ
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we would take. You know, many of the edits are

grammatical and they change our technical findings.
Because our chief counsel is not going to change our
technical evaluation, they're going to try to reword
it in a manner that they like to see it. But we can't
allow those edits to take away our technical
conclusion.
So to answer your question, when the
report was finalized it was reviewed by our chief
counsel, then it came back and Max and I sat down
and discussed which edits we would keep and then
finalized the report.
Q You might have gotten a little ahead of
me, I wasn't to a report writing stage yet. I was
asking if when he finished his work did he come and
discuss it with you like before he wrote a report?
A The report is being written as he's
evaluating it. The way our office is set up, we set
it up very efficiently, and I always tell these young
guys I didn't do this because I like them, I did it so
they could produce more work. They have their
computer right here, they have a tool box right next
to their computer and they have a workbench directly
behind them. It's about an 8X8 cube. That way the
majority of their work is typed directly into a
1723
(7) Page 25 ~ Page 28
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

Page29
Page31
report. So they don't have to go offsite, write a

l
A I was agreeing with you they are not
report and come back and type it in.
2 substantive.
3
So as he's working on the evaluation, he's
3
Q Okay.
4 typing the report up.
4
A They are not the technical experts, they're
5
Q Does that mean he's not taking separate
5 the experts obviously in the law. And if we missed
6 notes or anything, he's actually composing them into
6 something in the law, then they would correct that for
1 a report as he goes?
7 us. And we didn't miss anything on this one.
e
A He could do both. He could take notes, he
e
Q Okay. So in this particular case ...
9 could type them up. But the majority of all of our
9 well, Jet me back up. The report or the letter does
10 reports are literally written as the firearm is being
10 contain some legal conclusions; is that right?
l l evaluated, or the item is being evaluated.
11
A That is correct.
12
Q Now, the form of the report, what I've
12
Q And so I think you're saying it's possible
13 seen as the finished product is a letter to Mr.
13 that the chief counsel's office would modify or
14 Savage. Is that the report you're referring to?
14 perhaps even disagree with the legal conclusions, in
15 this particular case you're saying that didn't
1s
A Yes.
16
Q There's not a report that's used to
16 happen; is that right?
17 generate that letter?
17
A That's correct.
lB
A No.
18
Q Okay. Were you present during any of the
19 testing that Mr. Kingery did?
19
Q The letter is the report?
20
A Yes, I was.
20
A The letter ... we do have two reports, we
21 have criminal cases and correspondence. We have a 21
Q Can you describe what portions of the
22 criminal case which is an ATF approved format report. 22 testing you were present for?
A The testing meaning the evaluation of the
23 It's just terminology. Any correspondence is written 23
24 in letter format.
24 testing?
25
Q So the report, I'm sorry, the letter that
25
Q All of it. His entire classification.
l
Page32
Page 30
I think went out under Mr. Spencer's signature to

l
A I was present for him evaluating it
2 physically, I was present when the firearm was
Mr. Savage informing of the classification of the
3 disassembled, i was present when he made a comparison
3 defendant as a machine gun was Mr. Kingcry's report?
4 to the type of firearm that it was based on. I was
4
A Yes.
5
Q Okay. Does that mean Mr. Kingery didn't
5 present when he made a comparison to the semiautomatic
6 variant of this type of firearm that is on the market.
6 write a different report? I mean, he didn't have
7 And I was present during test fires.
7 another report and then the Jetter was written?
e Q That sounds pretty comprehensive.
e
A No.
9
A In our office it is not.
9
Q That was it?
10
Q
So there were other things that Mr.
10
A That's the final.
11
Q Okay. And I think you said that it was
11 Kingery did in his classification for which you were
12 reviewed by the chief counsel's office. Does that
12 not present, is that what you're saying? Let me
13 mean that the report initially written by Mr.
13 back up. When I said that sounded pretty
14 Kingery is not necessarily exactly what was the
14 comprehensive, what I was getting at is it sounded
15 like you were present for the bulk or all of the
15 final report?
16 classification.
16
A I would say grammatically, no.
17
A I was not, though.
17
Q Okay. So the chief counsel's
18 modifications are, this is somewhat repetitive, I
ls
Q Okay. So what portions of it were you not
19 think you said they're grammatical, maybe
19 present for?
20 syntactical in nature but not substantive?
20
A I would say those portions are not very much
21
A No.
21 of an evaluation, that's how comprehensive our
22
Q I probably shouldn't have asked the
22 evaluations are in our facility. So when he would
23 question in the negative. When you say no, do you
23 take the firearm and detaiVstrip it, I wouldn't be
24 mean no, they're not substantive or were you
24 there. He would call me over and say this is a real
2s disagreeing with me?
25 PK-type machine gun. This is the similarities. Okay.
l
Page 29 - Page 32 (8)
1724
\1111-l
-~t
riptill
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page 33
So he would do other things to it, take

measurements, look at it. He would call me over and
3 say this is the semiautomatic variant that is for
4 sale and make a comparison. That is not very
s time-consuming, it may seem like it is but it isn't.
6
Q If I understood you right, you said you
7 weren't present for detailed stripping and some
8 measurement taking; is that right?
9
A Correct.
10
Q Is that all?
11
A Probably. But once again, that's the way
12 our office operates. That is not uncommon for a
13 person to bring me over to get things evaluated. So
14 to me, I don't think that is an inordinate amount of
15 time.
16
Q While you were present during the
17 activities that you described, did you give Mr.
18 Kingery any guidance, advice, instructions on what
19 to do?
20
A Without recollecting exactly what I said,
21 I'm sure I did.
22
Q You don't remember any specific things
23 that you told him to do?
24
A No, no specific wordings.
25
Q Well, what about specific activities?
Page 35
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A I don't know.
THE WITNESS: (to Mr. jeff): Was that
Attachment A?
MR. VISCOMI: I think it might be best to
show him what you're referring to.
(Thereupon, Claimant's Exhibit Number I
was marked for identification).
BY MR. MONROE:
Claimant's Exhibit 1. Is that the procedures you
were referring to?
A Yes, sir.
MR. VISCOMI: May I see the exhibit
please? Is this the complete exhibit? Was
there a signature?
MR. MONROE: No, here's the one that's got
Spencer's name on the back.
MR. VISCOMJ: So it doesn't have a
signature page.
MR. MONROE: Oh, that's the one you
originally gave. This was the ...
MR. FOSTER: Unsigned version.
MR. VISCOMI: Even that one had a
signature space, though, there seems to be
maybe a page missing.
Page 34
l
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
lO
ll
12
13
u
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
Without knowing the specific words.

A Can you explain what you mean by specific
activities?
Q Well, when you said you don't recall the
specific words, I wasn't necessarily asking if you
knew exactly the words you used but if you
remembered the instructions you gave, you know, by
paraphrasing them.
A Other than, you know, make detailed
comparisons to the objects you're comparing it to.
You know, I know I would have said something like
that.
Q Are there standardized testing procedures
that the FTB would use in classifying a firearm?
A What do you mean by standardized testing
procedures?
Q Well, do you have any written procedures
for how a classification should be done that are
used, you know, all of the time or most of the time?
A Yes, we have a general standard operating
procedure.
Q And is that the procedure that was
provided, I think it was Attachment A to the
response to request for admissions, I don't know if
you're familiar with it that way or not.
'lin-1
-~lriptQ.
Page 36
l
3
4
5
6
7
8
lo
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
l8
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MONROE: Okay. I'm going to remark

this.
(Thereupon, Claimant's Exhibit Number 1
was re-marked for identification).
BY MR. MONROE:
Q I'm giving you a new version of
Claimant's Exhibit 1. Is that the procedures you're
talking about?
A Yes, it is.
Q And who wrote those procedures?
A I did.
Q Do you know when you wrote them?
A I originally wrote them when we moved to
Martinsburg, West Virginia. And I believe that was
the end of 2003 and I don't remember the exact date.
Q And when were they implemented?
A Well, they've always been implemented.
There wasn't a written version, but we have always had
a standard procedure, whether verbal or based on ATF
orders or based on previous classifications. We have
always had a standard operating procedure. I just
decided coming from the military that we should have
SOP's. And I talked to people and I wrote it.
Q So you are saying what you wrote was a
written version of what had already been in place?
1725
(9) Page 33 - Page 36
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

Page 37
Page 39
A Absolutely. This is a written version of

1
Q And to the best of your knowledge, were
previous procedures and policy.
2 the procedures in Exhibit I followed in this case?
3
Q And those previous procedures and policies
J
A Very, very well.
4 were unwritten until you wrote Exhibit I?
4
Q Okay. If you were not present for some of
5
A Other than our ATF orders that we follow.
5 it, does that mean you may not know if it was
6
Q So when you wrote that, you were not
6 followed in every instance?
7 implementing any new procedures?
7
A Of course I would have to say since I was
8
A No.
8 not present I would not be physically aware, but I'm
9
Q Okay. And then I notice that that version
9 extremely confident in the professionalism of our
10 was signed by Mr. Spencer in October of2007?
10 firearms enforcement officers. They did what was
11
A That's correct. We were undergoing our
11 appropriate.
12 office review and John Spencer had just checked in as 12
13 the branch chief. And part of the office review is
13
14 have our SOP's signed and on display so we printed off 14 BY MR. MONROE:
1s a version for John Spencer to print, or to sign.
1s
16
Q So is it fair to say he was formalizing
16 Claimant's Exhibit 2 that your counsel provided
11 what already was in place by signing it?
11 yesterday.
18
A If you want to word it in that manner,
18
A Yes.
19 "formalizing it."
19
Q Can you identify what that is?
20
Q Well, I'm not trying to put words in your
20
A These arc excerpts from ATF ordered 3310.4B,
21 mouth.
21 which is the Firearms Enforcement Program.
22
A We believe that it was formalized way before 22
Q And those particular excerpts, what do
23 that.
2 3 they consist of?
24
Q All right. Well, then what was the
24
A Well, the Foreword, the Index, and then
25 purpose of him signing it?
25 Removal ofa Weapon from the "Fircanns" NFA Category.
1
Page 38
Page40
A You know, to make it sound not very badly

1
Q On the front cover there's a notation up
but we have an office review and an office review has 2 at the top, it says includes -- there's an
3 a checklist. And we went down our checklist preparing
J abbreviation, I think maybe it means changes, I'm
4 for our office review. And as we were going down our
not positive, 1 through 18. First of all, do you
s checklist for the office review, one of the things -s know, does that mean changes, do you know?
6 and since he was the new chief, we presented
6
A Yes, includes changes 1 through 18.
7 everything to him so that he could start out as a new
7
Q Can you explain what that notation means?
a chief and we could do extremely well in our office
8
A What it would mean to me is that changes
9 review. And we ensured that they were signed.
9 that were made, numbers I through 18, are in this
10
Q Is what you're calling an office review
10 order.
11 some kind of internal audit, is that what it is?
11
Q Assuming after the document was originally
12
A It's a review, an audit and inspection, they
12 written, which was it looks like in 1989, is that
13 go through and ensure all ATF policies are in place, 13 what-14 inventories are correct.
14
A This is the version that we have. So it may
15
Q Who conducts that?
1s have been written prior to 1989. And I would have to
16
A ATF.
16 say it would have been, because if it was written in
11
Q But presumably a different branch?
17 '89 there wouldn't be included changes. So they
18
A Yes, office inspections.
18 included changes. I did technical manuals in the
19
Q Okay. So Mr. Spencer signed Exhibit 1 in
19 military and every year we have a change in those
20 anticipation of an office review?
20 technical manuals and you would go in and write the
21
A Yes.
21 change in the appropriate paragraph, page and line and
22
Q Okay.
22 then put the change in the folder with it. When the
23
A So back to what I was saying, the SOP had
23 new version came out, you would throw away the changes
24 been in place, we didn't create an SOP just for him to 24 because the changes would be included in the new
25 sign.
25 version.
1
Page 37 - Page 40 (10)
1726
\lin-l -~l ript "
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page 41
So if it says includes changes 1 through

18, that would tell me, which I may be incorrect,
3 these are ATF directives, that changes that were
4 written to the original document had been
5 implemented into the 1989 version.
6
Q So just to make sure I'm understanding you
7 correctly, you're saying that you believe that those
e 18 changes would have taken place before 1989?
9
A Yes.
lo
Q So that version I guess hasn't been
11 changed since 1989?
12
A This is the one that we have, it's an
13 electronic version that's posted on our ATF
14 directives. So if there's any changes I wouldn't know
15 if those changes are on there.
16
Q So is what you're saying if they've been
17 made, they haven't been disseminated, they haven't
18 been communicated to you?
19
A If it wouldn't pertain to me, this is a very
20 broad order as you can see the index.
21
Q Uh-huh (affirmative).
22
A This is a very, very broad order. So there
23 could be -- several changes didn't pertain to our
24 office that we may not have.
25
Q Okay. May I see it a minute, please?
l
2
3
5
6
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
Page43
Q So if there's a section in here that

pertains to FTB, you didn't write it I guess you're
saying?
4
A That is correct.
5
Q And you didn't necessarily have input into
6 it?
7
A Correct.
a
Q But you're obligated to follow it?
9
A Correct.
10
Q And you can look at it again if you need
11 to refresh your memory, but is Chapter 175 as it's
12 in Exhibit 2, is that the same version of Chapter
13 175 that's been in place for your tour of duty at
i
2
3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ATF?
A Yes.
Q In 175 (a) there's a discussion ofa

firearms classification panel. Do you know what
that is?
A Prior to my employment in 1989, there was an
official firearms classification panel. And it
doesn't exist any more.
Q Okay. So that has no bearing on this
case?
A No.
Q Okay. And no firearms classification
Page42
Page44
A (Presents).
Q Now, there's a section in here, I don't
know if these are chapters or what they're called,
it looks like chapters, 175 on examinations. It
looks like that pertains to FTB; is that right?
A That is correct.
Q But you're saying this document is -- when
you say it's an ATF document, you said that as
though it wasn't you, so is it a different branch or
some other office that creates this document?
A Maybe I misspoke or maybe you misunderstood.
It's an ATF order so the ATF order covers all of ATF.
So there's certain areas that pertain to us and
certain areas that do not pertain to us. Or do you
need more clarification on what I said?
Q No, that's helpful. So then is it written
by different branches and compiled into a single
document, or is there some branch or office that
creates this entire document?
A You know, in reality I do not know how our
directives are written.
Q I take it that means you don't write them.
A No, that is correct.
Q Do you know where they come from?
A They come from our headquarters.
panel was employed in this case?

A I wouldn't say a panel, but ... in answer to
3 your question, there was no firearms classification
panel as it refers to the directive employed in this
s case.
6
Q Okay. Was there some other kind of panel
7 employed?
a
A No.
9
Q Do you know who at FTB participated in the
lO decision to classify the defendant as a machine gun?
11 I think you've already testified that you have and
i2 Mr. Kingery have participated. Did anyone else
13 participate?
14
A Mr. Spencer and our chief counsel's office.
15
Q Okay. What was Mr. Spencer's involvement?
16
A As the chief, it's his responsibility to
17 review and either agree or disagree with our
18 conclusions.
19
Q Did Mr. Spencer, was he present for any of
20 the testing or evaluation or anything?
21
A You would have to ask Mr. Spencer that. As
22 I recall, I don't remember.
23
Q You don't know that he was?
24
A Well, actually for one test fire he was, so
2s I know he was present for one test fire.
\ Jifl-l "l'ript ) I
1727
(11) Page 41 - Page 44
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September JO, 2009

Page45
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Were there multiple test fires?

l
A Yes.
2
Q At your facility?
3
4
A Only one at our facility.
Q Is that the one he was present for?
5
A He was present for the one in Atlanta.
6
Q Okay. There was one test fire at your
7
facility?
e
A Yes.
9
Q And then there was one in Atlanta, I think
lo
you've provided a video of that, that only had ATF 11
and other government employees present. Is that the 12
one you're referring to?
13
A I believe it is.
14
15
Q And then there was another test fire at
16
the Coweta County Sheriff's Office where a lot of
17
people were present on both sides; isn't that right?
18
A Yes.
u
Q So we have those three test firings?
20
A Yes.
Q Were there any others?
21
22
A I'm trying to think.
23
THE WITNESS: (To Mr. Foster): Did Max
24
come up here at a different time than when I
25
came up with John?
Page47
for some reason ... I was present at the one at the

Sheriff's Office, I was present at the one with the
presentation to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and I was
present at our test facility.
So I said four but now as I think ... I
just need to confirm whether it was four or not. I
don't want to misspeak.
Q Okay.
A So for sure there was three.
Q Are you saying that you don't know if
there was a fourth one or you may not have been
present at the fourth one?
A Let me just take a quick break.
Q Okay.
(Thereupon, Deponent confers privately
with Mr. Foster and Mr. Viscomi).
MR. MONROE: Why don't we just take a five
minute break.
MR. FOSTER: That would be great.
(Thereupon, a brief recess ensued at
approximately 11: 10 a.m. and the proceedings
subsequently resumed at approximately 11 : 17
a.m. with all parties present).
BY MR. MONROE:
Q Before we took a break I think there was
Page46
Page48
1 some confusion over whether there were three or four

MR. FOSTER: He did a presentation to the
2 test fires and whether you were present at three or
U.S. Attorney's office.
3 four of them. Do you have any clarification of
3
THE WITNESS: Yes. So there would have
4
been one more.
4 that?
s
A Yes. I was present at three.
5 BY MR. MONROE:
6
Q And what are the circumstances of that?
s
Q Do you know if there were four?
7
A There were four test fires.
7
A I wasn't present.
Q If you don't know that's fine. Do you
Q And which one were you not present for?
e
a
9
A The videotape of the test fire that you
9 know who was present?
10
A Max was present.
10 received.
11
Q Okay.
11
Q The one that wasn't at Coweta County
12 Sheriff's range?
12
A And ...
13
(Thereupon, Mr. Foster confers privately
13
A Correct.
14
Q Do you know where that fourth one took
14
with Deponent).
15
THE WITNESS: Okay. That was the one
15 place? I think it was somewhere in the Atlanta
16 area, but ...
16
where I was present. I was confused when that
17
A It was in the Atlanta area.
17
was a presentation to the U.S. Attorney's
1e
Q Do you know who was present for that one?
18
Office.
19
A I know Max was and I didn't ask who all was
19 BY MR. MONROE:
20 present for it.
20
Q I'm sorry, you were present for that one?
21
Q Okay. And the purpose of the first ...
21
A Yes, I was.
22 I'm assuming the test firing at the ATF facility was
22
Q So you were present for all four test
23 the first one; is that right?
23 firings?
24
A Let me ... I'm going to have to clarify and
24
A That is correct.
25 come back with that. I know for sure there was three, 2s
Q And the purpose of that obviously was to
l
Page 45 - Page 48 (12)
1728
\Jin-l
-~trip! Ii
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page49
facilitate the classification?

A Correct.
Q And the second one, was that the one at
4 which you were not present? Or do you not
5 necessarily know what order they were in?
6
A You know, the second third one I'm not ... I
7 don't want to speculate on the order.
s
Q All right. So then there was th~ one that
9 was videoed at which you were not present. What was
10 the purpose of that one, do you know?
ll
A I believe that was to provide it to them.
12
Q Towhom?
13
A To Len and ...
14
Q Are you saying that one was done for the
15 purpose of providing video to the claimant?
16
A Yes.
17
Q Okay. And then there was another one, I
18 think you said that was for the U.S. Attorney's
19 Office?
20
A Yes, to present to the U.S. Attorney's
21 Office.
22
Q Was that to basically show the U.S.
23 Attorney what the substance of the matter was, is
24 that ...
25
A To demonstrate it would shoot automatically.
Page 51
Q Was that the first test firing done?
2
3
A Yes.
Q Were you present for that one?
A I wasn't present until he came in and used
s the chain in the rear.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
Q So-A So I consider that one test fire.

Q I understand. So the first firing with
the duct tape and the plastic ties, you were not
present for that?
A Correct.
Q And do you know who originated the idea of
installing some kind of rear plate or trunnion on
the defendant to fire it?
A That cable and plate has been in our
facility since I was hired in 1999 and we utilize it
for different weapons, it wasn't created just to test
fire the defendant weapon. So it's used on other
samples also.
Q My question was really whose idea was it,
not the implementation but the concept of attempting
to fire the defendant with some kind of trunnion
installed?
A I guess I don't understand ... if you can
rephrase that.
Page 50
Q And where was that one that one done?
Q Well, at some point somebody decided oh,

we should try to fire this thing. Who came up with
3 the idea of installing a plate on the back of it in
4 order to facilitate firing?
s
A That would have been Max.
6
Q And then does that mean that ... you said
7 that something had been around for a while, are you
8 talking about the plate, the aluminum plate?
9
A The aluminum plate and the cable. When we
10 test fire firearms, if they're not complete we want to
11 demonstrate that they're capable of firing as
12 designed. So we at times may use zip ties if that'll
13 hold, at times we use the cable. So like I was
14 saying, Max didn't just come up with an idea to say
lS you know what, I'm going to shoot this gun so I'm
16 going to use this cable and this plate. So it's a
17 process in our test firing procedure.
18
Q Is that part of a written procedure?
19
A The written procedure talks about test
20 firing. Obviously we ... I'm sure you know the wide
21 variety of models, pistols, shotguns that are out
22 there, so our procedure says test fire. It has to
23 give the Firearms Enforcement Officer some latitude of
24 how he fires the weapon.
2s
Q I'm going to try to summarize that, and I
l
A That was in Atlanta also.

3
Q Do you know where?
4
A One of the sheriffs' ranges.
s
Q And you were present for that?
6
A I was present for that.
7
Q And who else was present?
8
A Chief John Spencer, Harry Foster, Jeff
9 Viscomi and Dahil Goss.
10
Q And who is that?
11
A That's Jeff's supervisor.
12
Q And then there was the one at the
13 sheriffs range at which claimant and its experts
14 participated?
15
A Yes.
16
Q And as far as you know were those the only
17 four test firings done?
18
A Yes.
19
Q Then going back to the first one, the one
20 done at the ATF facility in West Virginia, I think I
21 understand from the report that the initial test
22 firing was done with some duct tape and plastic ties
23 to put a rear trunnion or something of that sort on
24 to the defendant; is that right?
2s
A Correct.
2
'Ii 11-l -~~ript~
Page 52
1729
(13) Page 49- Page 52
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

Page 53
1
2
3
s
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
Page 55
don't mean to put words in your mouth so correct me 1 firing it the way it was designed or if it wasn't
if rm not getting it right. Is what you're saying
2 dissembled as designed or something like that, do
Mr. Kingery would have come up with the concept of 3 you recall that?
putting some kind of rear plate on to fire it and
4
A I think I said we were trying to demonstrate
that he may have come up with the specific
s that it was capable of firing as designed.
configuration of the duct tape and the ties but that
&
Q Right.
that was something that was part ofFTB's tool box
7
A And when we implied -- we classified it as a
as it were of how to test fire items that were not
e machine gun so a machine gun is capable of firing
complete firearms?
9 automatically, we wanted to demonstrate that it had
A I think you worded it the way I'm trying to
lo those design features to shoot automatically.
say. He didn't develop a concept.
11
Q Okay. And so before you got to that point
Q Okay.
12 I assume that means that you had concluded or at
A That was something that we have implemented 13 least made a tentative conclusion that the defendant
in the past and it's something that he was aware of
14 was designed to fire automatically?
doing. So he utilized something that we have done in 15
A Yes.
the past.
16
Q And did you participate in that conclusion
Q And then my understanding is after that
17 or was that Mr. Kingery's conclusion?
first firing, the recoil pressure or something along
18
A Well, I think we discussed this earlier. As
those lines prevented it or, you know, I don't know 19 he was writing his report and making his comparisons,
exactly what happened, but that configuration failed 20 you know, he was making the classification and the
because it couldn't withstand the recoil pressures;
21 conclusions and he would confer with me, and we agreed
is that right?
22 that it had a machine gun receiver and it was designed
A Correct.
23 to shoot automatically.
Q And then someone came up with the idea of 24
Q If you agreed on that then do you recall
stepping up a notch and using a chain and a
25 what features of the defendant made you conclude
Page 54
Page 56
turnbuckle to hold the plate in place?

l that it was designed to shoot automatically?
A Max would have installed the chain and the
2
A Let me take one second and ask these two
turnbuckle to do the test fire.
3 guys a question.
4
4
Q Okay. And I think what you said was you
(Thereupon, the Deponent confers
5 were present when he fired it with the chain and the
privately with Mr. Foster and Mr. Viscomi).
5
6 turnbuckle holding the plate in place?
6
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that
7
A Yes.
7
question?
B
Q What were the circumstances under which
B BY MR. MONROE:
9 he ... did he contact you to come see it the second
9
Q I think you testified that you agreed or
10 time or did you ... I mean, what was your
10 you and Mr. Kingery came to a mutual conclusion that
11 involvement that you were present for the second one 11 the defendant was designed to shoot automatically.
12 but not the first one?
12
A Correct.
A As close as I can recall, when the guys are
13
13
Q And you came to that conclusion before you
14 test firing on a daily basis I always check on them
14 had fired it.
15 from time to time and I walk back to our test facility 15
A Correct.
16 which is probably about 20 feet and just to view it.
16
Q And so my question was what features of
17
Q Are you saying it was more or less
17 the defendant led you to that conclusion.
18 happenstance that you were there for the second
18
A The defendant fireann was based on a
19 firing?
19 PK-style machine gun. It was built on a semiautomatic
20
A Yes, more or less happenstance.
20 variant of a PK-style receiver. And a semiautomatic
Q Okay. And then when you were describing
21
21 variant had been evaluated by our office, that
22 the wide variety of firearms and different things
22 manufacturer had submitted his semiautomatic variant
23 that you might have to use to test it, I think you
23 to our office for approval as to being classified as
24 said something about firing it and I don't remember 24 only a semiautomatic firearm. And that variant had a
25 exactly what you said, something on the order of
25 block installed in the receiver that would prohibit
1
2
3
Page 53 - Page 56 (14)
American Court Reportlng Company, Inc.
1730
\Ii n-l
-~uipf \l
RIF

One History Arms Model 54RCCS, etc:.
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page 57
2
3
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the installation of machine gun components.

Part of his evaluation --we had worked
with this manufacturer -- was to ensure that block
remained in his semiautomatic variant. If the block
was removed, then we would classify it as a machine
gun. So the defendant weapon did not have that
block installed. Once it's removed, it's now
considered a machine gun.
Q Is that all?
A That's one of the main features. We cycled
it. We looked at it, Max doing the majority of it,
bringing me over. We determined that it had a machine
gun receiver and it was designed to function as a
machine gun, meaning gas operated, firing from a belt,
being able to fire continuously with a I would say a
somewhat fixed firing pin because it doesn't have a
true fixed firing pin. When the bolt closes, the
firing pin protrudes, so you don't need a hammer to
fire it, you can release the bolt under spring tension
and it's going to fire a round from the belt.
Q When you say you cycled it, could you
describe what you mean by that?
A A function test, operate it manually to see
how it's going to operate.
Q And when you say you operate it, what
Page 59
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fire continuously, and it fired from an open bolt,

again, I guess you suspected it fired from an open
bolt because you hadn't fired it yet; is that right?
A Correct.
Q And lastly I think you said it had a
semi-fixed firing pin?
A I used the term semi-fixed because a fixed
firing pin is a firing pin that's actually built on to
a bolt. But rifle type machine guns generally have a
rotating bolt so when you pull the trigger the firing
pin is not sticking out fixed, but once it locks in
the battery and has a round chamber, the firing pin on
its own through a camming principle will lock forward
and ignite the primer.
So to say open bolt, a lot of people think
that all open bolt firearms have a fixed firing pin.
Well, most belt fed machine guns, you always say
most, you never say all, most belt fed machine guns
strip around off the belt going forward, where the
PK strips it off going backward then pushes the
round into the chamber. But when that round hits
the chamber, the firing pin is protruding and it
fires.
Q Okay. Were there other features that led
you to conclude that it was designed to be a machine
Page SB
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exactly are you doing?

A Running the firearm, the component parts
through the motions of how it would move when it's
fired.
Q Does that mean like you would manually
move the bolt handle?
A Hold the bolt to the rear, push the bolt
forward.
Q That's the extent of the cycling it that
you're describing?
A Well, in this capacity it would have been
because there was no trigger attached.
Q Okay. All right. So I think you said
there was a blocking bar not present and I think you
said it would fire continuously but would you have
known that before you fired it?
A What a function check does, you used the
term function check, it tells you how the firearm
cycles, you look at how it cycles. That gives you a
pretty good indication how it's going to fire.
Q Okay. So you're saying you suspected it
would fire continuously?
A Yes, we did.
Q Okay. So ifl caught everything you said,
there was no blocking bar, you suspected it would
\1i11-l-SL'ript'1~
Page60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ie
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gun or to fire automatically?

A That's probably all.
Q Are there firearms or have there ever been
made firearms that would fire from an open bolt that
were not designed to fire automatically or to shoot
automatically?
A Prior to 1982 -- ATF came up with
clarification rulings in 1982 and there were
submachine pistols or many firearms, the MAC is the
most legendary. And it was designated SAP,
semiautomatic pistol, because the MAC, a Military
Armament Corporation, either 45 caliber or 9mm was
designed to be fired from the open bolt. It was
originally made as a machine gun.
Well, their sales, they never got a
government contract so they decided to sell it to
the general public. And they developed a
semiautomatic variant that fired from the open bolt.
And there was others that were out there but the
most known is the MAC.
Well, all you had to do was literally with
a pair of pliers break a one~component part off the
trip and the gun would shoot automatically as a
machine gun. So in 1982, ATF reclassified the MACs
and put design characteristics of open bolt machine
1731
(15) Page 57 - Page 60
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

Page61
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
guns in our rulings. So since that time forward we

have not approved semiautomatic open bolt type
firearms.
Q When you say you haven't approved them, is
that because no one has submitted one that you
thought ought to be approved, or do you have a hard
and fast rule that there's no such thing as an open
bolt semiautomatic firearm?
A If it comes into our office and it fires
from the open bolt, it is not approved as a
semiautomatic firearm.
Q Period?
A Period.
Q Have there ever been manufactured firearms
that fired with a fixed or semi-fixed firing pin
that were not designed to shoot automatically?
A Could you please repeat that?
Q Sure. Have there ever been firearms that
fired with a fixed or a semi-fixed firing pin that
were not designed to shoot automatically?
A Well, if it had a fixed firing pin, as soon
as -- if there was a round in the chamber because it's
going to strip a round off, as soon as it hit the
primer it's going to shoot. So the MAC was one of
those. When it would -- it would lock to the rear in
Page63
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it so let me just try that again. I think you said

that there's essentially a hard and fast rule if it
fires from an open bolt it's a machine gun?
A Yes.
Q Is that right?
A (Nods head affirmatively).
Q Is there also a hard and fast rule that if
it has a fixed firing pin it's a machine gun?
A Yes, that's one of the design features.
Q So if a firearm has either feature it's a
machine gun period?
A Well, generally it's going to have both
features.
Q I understand.
A Yes, it's kind of -Q I'm asking them both because who knows
what somebody might make.
A Yes. It's going to have both features.
Q Okay. In the responses to our third
discovery requests that you were just served
yesterday, I think you signed a verification on
those, there is some discussion of having verbal
operating procedures.
A Yes.
Q Do you recall that?
Page62
l.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the open bolt position so you would have to squeeze

the trigger again. So to answer your question, yes,
there were firearms approved prior to the '82 rulings
that fired with a fixed firing pin or semi-fixed
firing pin from the open bolt in a semiautomatic
capability.
Q But not since 1982?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q Okay. To ask a parallel question then, is
that because no one's ever submitted one that you
thought should be approved, or is it because again
you have a hard and fast rule that if it has a fixed
firing pin it won't be approved?
A Since I've been employed since 1999, I don't
know of any manufacturers in the United States that
are selling open bolt firearms to the public. I know
that we have not approved any since 1999. Could there
be a possibility of some out there that we are not
aware of? Absolutely there could be the possibility
of some. Could there be some imported erroneously?
Absolutely there could be. But since 1999 since I've
been employed with ATF we have not approved fireanns
that fired semiautomatically with a fixed firing pin
and fired from the open bolt.
Q Okay. And I'm not sure you answered you
Page 61 - Page 64 (16)
Page64
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A (Nods head affirmatively).

Q By verbal do you mean oral?
A Yes.
Q How do you maintain oral procedures? I
mean, how are they documented or ... and not just
become something of legend or something like that?
A I think in any organization that you have
there's known policy that is not written down. We're
no different than anyone else. We can't write every
single thing down, so we have verbal instruction. We
give verbal instruction on a daily basis. And when
you think of verbal SOP, I give you a very simple
instruction, you give a person an instruction when you
write this report it will be complete and concise. Am
I going to put that in an SOP? No. When I give
instruction to one of my fircanns enforcement officers
when they're going to testify or when they're doing
something, we always give them the certain
instruction, ensure you tell the whole truth to the
best of your knowledge and do not deviate. I'm not
going to put that in my SOP. So in reality, there are
many verbal SOPs in any organization.
Q Is it possible in your estimation to
design a conversion device for a MAC machine gun to
fire rifle cartridges and not have it be a machine
1732
\lin-l
-~cnpt 1'
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page 65
gun?
A I would not even want to venture to answer
3 that with either a yes or a no, for the simple reason
4 that every day with technology something could be
5 developed.
6
Q And again I don't want to put words in
7 your mouth. Are you saying that you don't know of a
e way but you don't want to discount the possibility?
9
A Absolutely. Technology is changing every
io day.
11
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Savage that it
12 wasn't allowable to convert a MAC machine gun to
13 fire rifle cartridges?
14
A I don't think I did, but, you know, when
1
15 you're discussing things something could come out in a
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
different manner. I may have said it in a matter

that, you know, a rifle cartridge is too big to fit in
a MAC upper. I could have said a variety of ways.
Q You wrote a report a few days ago that I
think is Exhibit 3; is that right?
THE WITNESS: (Reviews document). Yes.
BY MR. MONROE:
Q And then in your report you reference two
Page 67
MR. MONROE: I mean, I think that one's

well documented.
3 BY MR. MONROE:
4
Q Were those the only reports you reviewed
s for this case?
6
A When I wrote this letter the other day, I
7 asked Max to come up to me and give me the reports
e that he'd written and these are the two reports that
9 he gave me that he had written. As best as I recall
10 those were the two that I had reviewed.
11
Q Okay. Let me ...
12
MR. MONROE: ls this the original?
13
MR. SAVAGE: That's what was sent to me.
14
MR. MONROE: I know, but is this the
15
original?
16
MR. SAVAGE: No, that's a copy.
17
18
19 BY MR. MONROE:
20
21 Exhibit 5 which is the July 1lth letter to Mr.
22 Savage. Do you recognize that?
23
A (Reviews document). That's from John, JRS.
24
Q Do you recognize that?
25
A Yes, I do.
l
Page66
reports that Mr. Kingery wrote, a number 472 and a

number 607; is that right?
3
A Correct.
4
Q And the first one, 472, that was the
5 classification letter or what we've talked about
6 earlier during this deposition as Mr. Kingery's
7 report?
e
A Do you have that?
9
Q (Presents).
lo
A Okay.
11
Q That's the first document I think is
12 number 472; is that right?
13
A Correct.
14
Q Okay. And then you also reference this.
15
16
11 BY MR. MONROE:
18
Q Document 607 I've marked as Exhibit 4. Is
19 that the document you're referring to in your
20 report?
21
A (Reviews document). Yes.
22
MR. VISCOMI: Excuse me, John, are you
23
putting the other one into evidence?
24
MR. MONROE: I wasn't intending to.
2s
MR. VISCOMJ: Okay.
1
'lin-l -'H'ri11t!)1
Page 68
Q Okay, what is that?

A This is a letter to Len Savage from our
3 chief, John Spencer.
4
Q If you recognize it I guess you've seen
5 that before too?
6
A Yes.
7
Q What's puzzling me a little bit is Exhibit
e 4 I'm not sure Mr. Savage ever received, but Exhibit
.9 5 seems to have quite a few excerpts in it from
10 Exhibit 4. And I'm wondering, I mean, I guess one
11 theory is that Exhibit 4 was a draft or something
12 like that for lack of a better word and that Exhibit
13 5 was the final product. But I'm asking you if you
u know-15
A Exhibit 4 and Exhibit S are two different
16 items. This is a letter written by our chief, John
17 Spencer. So this wouldn't be a draft of Exhibit 4.
l
18 He may have taken some of the language from Exhibit 4.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Well, Exhibit 4 is also, I mean, on its

face is a letter from Mr. Spencer, isn't it?
A No, the initials tell us who initiated it.
Q I realize that the initials might indicate
who wrote it, but like, for example, the letter that
we haven't marked as an exhibit, which wns Mr. -that was document 472 -- that actually is a letter
1733
(17) Page 65 - Page 68
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

Page69
Page 71
from Mr. Spencer to Mr. Savage, isn't it?

A Yes.
3
Q But it was written by Mr. Kingery?
4
A Correct.
s
Q Okay. It looks like Exhibit 4 is also a
6 letter from Mr. Spencer to Mr. Savage that was
7 written by Mr. Kingery.
e
A Correct.
g
Q Okay. And then Exhibit Sis a letter that
10 was apparently written by Mr. Spencer and also
11 signed by Mr. Spencer and sent to Mr. Savage. And
12 it contains -- "it" being Exhibit S -- contains
13 large portions of the wording from Exhibit 4. And
14 I'm ... I mean, maybe you don't know but I'm just
15 trying to clarify what the distinction between those
16 documents is and if, for example, one was an initial
17 draft and one was a final product or something like
18 that.
19
A And it may very well be this may be the
20 draft ... I'm sure that's something that John's going
21 to have to clarify, but as I recall, you know, I
22 looked at this letter and this report for Max. And if
23 John finalized the letter directly from him instead of
24 from Max, then that's what he would have done in this
25 letter. So you're probably correct that this may have
Q I mean, visual could mean a variety of

things, and obviously you've seen it, did you
3 inspect it up close and in a dissembled state or
4 anything like that?
5
A Yes, I did.
6
Q Did you make any particular observations
7 about it when you inspected it disassembled?
a
A Meaning observations in ...
9
Q Observations that you thought were of
10 import or interest in its classification.
11
A Actually Max guided me through it extremely
12 well. So my visual inspection was what they were
13 visual and he guided me through his findings.
14
Q So are you saying that Mr. Kingery pointed
15 out features that he had observed and basically just
16 seeking your concurrence in allowing you to make the
17 same observation?
18
A Yes, that's correct.
19
Q Are you aware of any observations you made
20 that Mr. Kingery didn't make?
21
A No.
22
Q Are you aware of any knowledge you have or
23 any facts you possess about the defendant that Mr.
24 Kingery doesn't have?
25
A No.
Page 70
Page72
been a draft and then John formalized a letter

1
2
directly from him.
3
3
Q But Exhibit 4 was the one that you
4
4 reviewed and approved or something like that?
5
5
A Yes.
6
Q And then perhaps Mr. Spencer made further
6
7
7 modifications on his own?
a
A Yes.
a
9
9
Q Which he's entitled to do.
10
10
A Absolutely.
11
Q Okay. Let me have the letter back,
11
12
12 please, we're not going to put that in, I don't
13
13 think.
14
Now, you've been designated by your
14
15 counsel as an expert in this case, is that your
15
16 understanding?
16
17
A Yes.
17
18
Q Do you know what matters you're expecting
18
19 to testify about as an expert?
19
20
20
A No, I do not.
21
Q Okay. I know you said you were present
21
22 and observed Mr. Kingery performing some tests and 22
2 3 inspections and such on the defendant. Did you also 21
24 perform any, you personally?
24
25
A Other than visual, no.
2s
l
Page 69 - Page 72 (18)
Q I think you said that the people that

participated in the classification were Mr. Kingery,
yourself, Mr. Spencer, and someone from chief
counsel's office; is that right?
A Let me rephrase that. Okay. They
participated in the final product. Max did the
evaluation, Max made the conclusions, I concurred with
Max on his conclusions. Chief counsel reviewed the
document and concurred with our findings and then
Chief Spencer signed the document concurring with all
of our findings.
Q Is it fair to say that Mr. Spencer's
and ... let me start over again.
Are we talking about a particular person
in the chief counsel's office or do you know?
A Our chief counsel's office in Martinsburg
has two staff.
Q And who are they?
A Todd Martin. And at the time I believe it
was Jean Miller that was there.
Q And are you saying you don't know which of
them or if both participated?
A It was most likely Todd.
Q Okay, Todd Miller?
A Martin.
1734
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page 73
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Martin. So is it fair to say Mr. Martin's

and Mr. Spencer's participation was at a fairly high
level more or less reviewing and approving and not
actively participating in the decision?
A Are you meaning high level like their
superior ranking or -Q Well, I was more getting at they reviewed
the final product, maybe made changes, maybe didn't
and approved it without getting into the substantive
details of the decision.
A That would be correct.
Q Okay.
MR. MONROE: Let's take one more break.
approximately 11 :43 a.m. and the proceedings
subsequently resumed at approximately 11 :SO
a.m. with all parties present).
BY MR. MONROE:
Q In Exhibit 1 which are the operating
procedures that you wrote, there's a reference to
two rulings, 82-8 and 83-5, do you recall that?
A Do I recall the rulings or the reference?
Q Well, first of all the reference.
A Yes.
Q Do you recall the ruling?
Page 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ones that were manufactured before a particular

date?
A That's correct.
Q But whatever number of those there are,
they're out there?
A Yes.
Q Now, based on your inspection and
observations of the defendant, did you conclude
whether it was intended to be installed on a
particular firearm blower?
A Can you say that again?
Q I mean, did you come to any conclusion of
what the purpose of the defendant was?
A What the intention of the manufacturer was?
Q Yes.
A Or what our interpretation of what the
defendant weapon was?
Q What the intention of the manufacturer
was.
A Yes. And it's indicated that there's a
portion of a MAC upper welded inside the receiver.
Q And so what did you conclude the purpose
of the manufacturer was in manufacturing the device?
A The purpose of the manufacturer in
manufacturing the device is that he wanted to install
Page 74
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lfi
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Yes.
Q 82-8 if I remember had to do with some
devices that were determined to be machine guns but
that the ones manufactured before a particular date
were not I guess treated as machine guns for
purposes of transfer and possession; is that right?
A Let me find it. (Reviews document).
Correct.
Q What is the proper treatment of one of
those firearms under that ruling if it's ... I mean,
I guess ATF considers it to be a machine gun but
it's freely transferable without even a Form 4 ifl
understand it; is that right?
A If it was manufactured before that date as
an open bolt pistol, then ATF said we're not going to
apply the machine gun classification to it.
Q So I guess the conclusion is that means
there's a, I don't know about the sizes, but there's
some bucket of firearms that are machine guns that
aren't registered, don't have to be registered and
are freely transferable without a Form 4; is that
right?
A Well, that is correct but they are no longer
allowed to be manufactured.
Q I understand. So we're only talking about
'lin-l -~H'riptQ
Page 76
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it on to a MAC receiver.
Q And then what would that accomplish?
A Well, with our classification, that would be
the classification of two machine guns, the registered
MAC or -- would be a machine gun, or if it was a
semiautomatic MAC, that would be converting the
semiautomatic MAC into a mnchinc gun. And since we
classified the upper as a machine gun, that would also
be a machine gun in and of itself.
Q And the caliber of the defendant is what,
do you know?
A Of the defendant weapon?
Q Yes.
A 7.62XS4.
Q And that's not the caliber of a MAC; is
that right?
A Correct.
Q So the result would be a MAC that shoots
7.62X54; is that right?
A Yes.
Q There was some discussion in the responses
to our third discovery request about the possibility
of returning the defendant to the claimant for
modification, do you recall that?
A Yes.
1735
(19) Page 73 - Page 76
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 1O, 2009

Pagen
Page79
Q Okay. And I think you said in there that

l
that process is something that has been done and is
2
3 done by FTB in certain cases; is that right?
l
4
A That is correct.
4
s
Q And I think you said that wasn't
5
6 appropriate in this particular circumstance; is that
6
7 right?
7
8
A Well, we made the offer to allow him to
8
9 register it on a Form 2. He had already registered it
9
10 as a short barrell rifle, so it was acknowledged to be 10
11
11 a firearm, a rifle. So we made the offer to change
12 the classification but it would have been a machine
12
13 gun receiver so he could not have modified the machine 13
14 gun receiver. It would have been a machine gun and he u
15 would have been able to get the gun back.
15
16
Q Okay. And I understand that. Let me
16
17 clarify my question. I was speaking of a
17
18 circumstance where it would be returned without a
18
19 Form 2 for modification so as not to be a machine
l9
20 gun. And so my question was: Is that something
20
21 that's ever done by FTB?
21
22
A I would have to say that there may have been 22
23 times where we sent fircanns back without placing them 23
24 on a Form 2 and told the manufacturer to take the
24
25 offending features off that allowed this semiautomatic 25
l
gun, not that the parts installed in it made it shoot

automatically. So yes, there would probably have been
instances where we did that.
Q Okay. But you no longer do that?
A Correct.
Q Under any circumstances?
A Under any circumstances.
Q Do you know when that changed?
A I wouldn't know. I just, like I said, since
I've been as the assistant chief I've tried to always
enforce that.
Q Are you saying that ever since you've been
assistant chief that that former practice has not
taken place?
A To the best of my recollection it has not
taken place.
Q So you don't know of any instances, for
example, where a device that you would -- again,
this is since you've been assistant chief -- you
don't know of any circumstances where a device that
FTB had detennined to be a machine gun wns sent back
to Mr. Savage without a Form 2 being done?
A No. We sent items back to Mr. Savage that
we had not classified as machine guns and then
reclassified them as machine guns.
Page 78
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
receiver to shoot automatically. I know ... I

wouldn't say I know, I say I believe there probably
have been times.
Now, we ensure that if it shoots
automatically, whether it's a semiautomatic receiver
or a machine gun receiver, it's registered on a Form
2, sent back to the individual. To manufacture now,
we're not talking about a civilian, it's somebody
who's licensed as a person to manufacture machine
guns. We send it back to that manufacturer. The
manufacturer removes the offending features, because
it's a semiautomatic receiver, we've made that
determination. Sends it back to us for a
reclassification. And then we authorize it to be
removed for the classification of a machine gun.
Did that clarify it?
Q I think so. Let me just follow up with
that. So I think what you're saying is there may
have been a time when you would send back to a
manufacturer what you had detennined to be a machine
gun without requiring a Form 2 but your current
policy or practice is not to do that; is that
correct?
A And those circumstances would only have been
if we determined that the receiver was not a machine
Page 77 - Page 80 (20)
Page 80
l
Q At some later date?
A At some later date.
Q Does that mean there was an initial
classification that it was something else or not a
s machine gun?
6
A Yes.
Q Do you know the circumstances? I mean,
e was that a one-time thing that you recall?

A I don't remember specifically.
9
10
Q So you don't remember the details of even
11 one instance that you think it happened?
12
A I know it was an RPO-based firearm and I
13 know that it happened.
14
Q Was that another conversion device for a
15
MAC?
16
A Like I said, I know it was RPO-based. It

was probably for a MAC.
Q Okay.
A An RPO is a type of machine gun.
Q So what you recall, I think what you're
saying is you believe it was I guess submitted at
one time by Mr. Savage, it was classified as not a
machine gun, it was sent back to him under that
classification and then there was a later
determination that it was a machine gun?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1736
\Jln-l -Stript k
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page81
A Yes.
2
Q What were the circumstances of the later
3 detennination? Was it resubmitted or what brought
4 about a new inquiry into a classification for that?
5
A I did, I brought it about. I disagreed with
6 the original classification, and at later date I
7 brought the situation back up and had it reviewed and
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reclassified.
Q So did that happen while you were
assistant chief?
A Yeah.
Q And was the original classification done
while you were assistant chief?
A Yes.
Q Were you aware of it at the time it was
originally classified?
A Yes, I was.
Q And you disagreed at that time?
A Yes, I did.
Q And I guess that means you were overruled?
A Correct.
Q And then you were later successful in
reopening that particular matter?
A That is correct.
Q Do you remember how much later that was?
Page 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Say that in a different way.
Q That was a long question. Do you think

it's possible to modify the defendant so that it's
not a machine gun but that it still accomplishes the
design purpose that we discussed?
A Are you meaning the defendant as it sets,
can it be modified into something else?
Q Can you take that defendant out of the
box, spend some time in the machine shop, turn it
into something that's not a machine gun but still
have a caliber conversion device for a MAC machine
gun?
A That device is classified as a machine gun.
It's a machine gun receiver. So the machine gun
receiver cannot be reclassified.
Q Under any circumstances?
A Correct.
Q Nothing can be done to it to make it not a
machine gun other than its destruction?
A Is it physically capable to block it from
firing automatically? Yes. Is it classified as a
machine gun? Yes. It will always be a machine gun.
Q Does that mean that ... let me start over.
During the manufacturing process of a
firearm, it strikes me that at some stage in the
Page 82
2
Q Was there some incident or, I mean, was
3 there some occurrence that caused it to be
4 reinvestigated? I mean, I understand that you
l process you might have something that could be a

2 machine gun or could be a semiautomatic fireann
3 because it's not finished yet, does that seem fair?
4 Is that accurate?
s instigated it but did something change that allowed
6 it to be re-examined?
7
A I just took the initiative and went above my
6 address. I mean, if you have a specific ... I'm

7 sorry. As l recall, I said that would be a very broad
9
10
ll
12
13
14
lS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A No, I do not.
Page 84
supervisor's head.
Q And I guess because of that instance that
means that there are times when there is dissension
within FTB over a classification of a device?
A Yes.
Q And in the case of the defendant was there
any dissent that you know of?
A No.
Q So everyone who participated agreed that
the defendant is a machine gun?
A Yes.
Q Do you believe based on your knowledge and
inspection of the defendant if the defendant can be
modified in such a way so that it's no longer a
machine gun but that it still accomplishes the same
purpose we discussed earlier, that is, installing on
a MAC receiver and converting the caliber to
7.62X54?
'tiu-1. -'ilriptO
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A That's kind of a very broad spectrum to even
spectrum to address. Do you have a specific

situation?
Q I didn't have something in mind, I was
just ... I guess what I was imagining is that it
just strikes me that in the life of making a fireann
at some point you might have some precursor or some,
you know, unfinished product that depending on what
happens next might become a machine gun or might
become a non-machine gun.
A Well, I'll use two very clear examples of
firearms manufacturers that we're all familiar with,
the AR-15 and the AK-47. The AR-15 and the Ml6
receiver are almost identical. But when they're being
manufactured, the design features of a machine gun
have to be added later. There's a hole drilled to the
receiver to accept a machine gun seer and it is not in
the semiautomatic variant.
So when they're making the AR-15 receiver,
1737
(21) Pllge 81 - Page 84
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

Page SS
they don't drill the hole for the automatic seer on

a blank piece of aluminum and then detennine that to
3 be whether semiautomatic or automatic, they
4 manufacture the receiver and then determine we're
s going to make so many machine guns, so they drill
6 the automatic seer pin hole for the machine gun
7 variance and register those as machine guns.
e
Same as the AK-47. It has a machine gun
9 seer that must have a hole drilled into the receiver
10 to facilitate the installation of the machine gun
l l seer. You don't drill the hole first and then say
12 okay, we're going to determine at a later date these
13 are semiautomatic so let's try to fill this hole in,
14 you manufacture the receiver, then add the design
15 characteristics of the machine gun after the
l6 manufacturing process has been complete.
17
So those are two examples that are
18 familiar to all of us. Is there ... you know, to
19 say can anything happen in a manufacturing facility?
20 I couldn't answer that question.
21
Q Let me just take one of those examples
22 with the drilling of the hole. Would it be wrong
23 for a manufacturer say for the sake of efficiency to
24 drill a hole in every one and then decide later to
25 fill in the holes for ones that it didn't want to be
Page 87
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
l4
15
16
17
lB
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
that fair?
A That's ... I guess that's good wording.
Q Okay. So if you were to start from
scratch using, you know, the same kinds of
components like a PKM receiver, would it be possible
to make essentially a similar type device, you know,
a conversion device, caliber conversion device for a
MAC that wasn't a machine gun?
A We are aware, we know that there are
semiautomatic variants on the market. So there are
semiautomatic PK-type fireanns on the market. But it
is classified as a firearm.
So if I took a PX fireann and I installed
it on a MAC that was registered as a machine gun,
what would happen is I'm converting that
semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun. So
because remember the firearm is a component part,
it's semiautomatic. Once that firearm is capable of
shooting automatically, it becomes a machine gun.
Q I'm not sure I followed you but let me
just explore that. Are you saying that you can take
a MAC machine gun, which is a machine gun and you
can take a semiautomatic PK, which is a firearm, a
Gun Control Act fircann but not an NFA tireann, and
make the two and make a new machine gun?
Page 86
Page 88
a machine gun, would the manufacturer be guilty of l

having manufactured a machine gun?
2
Q Are you saying it's possible to do that or
3
A Absolutely.
3 are you saying of necessity if you make those two
4
Q Even if ... and my intention in that
4 you are doing that?
5 example was the hole was essentially permanently
5
A If you mate a firearm to a MAC and that
6 filled, welded in or, you know, whatever, whatever
6 firearm now shoots automatically and the MAC works as
7 you do.
7 a trigger, that firearm is now a machine gun in and of
e
A If we saw indications of a hole and we've
B itself.
9 done recalls on imported firearms where foreign
9
Q So you have made a new machine gun?
A Yes.
10 manufacturers have welded up AK-47 receiver pin holes lo
11 and tried to sell them in the commercial market as
ll
Q Okay. Now, that was in the circumstance
12 semiautomatic, and we've recalled those fireanns and 12 of when you started with something that was a
13 classified them as machine guns.
lJ firearm, a GCA firearm; is that right?
14
Q I'm kind of inferring from what you're
14
A Say that again.
15 saying that once you have something that you
15
Q Meaning the PK semi, that's a GCA firearm?
16 consider to be a machine gun receiver it can't be
16
17 unmade?
17
Q What if you start with something that's
l8
A Unless it's destroyed and remanufactured.
18 not a firearm, you start with parts, pieces, but
19
Q So once something becomes a machine gun
19 that do not qualify as a GCA firearm and then you
20 receiver, it is a machine gun receiver for the rest
20 make those with a MAC receiver so that you shoot
21 of its life?
21 automatically but a different caliber. If you
22
A Correct.
22 started with something that wasn't a firearm, have
23
Q So in the case of the defendant, I guess
23 you made a new machine gun or have you just changed
24 what you're saying is because you believe it is a
24 the caliber of your machine gun?
25 machine gun receiver, it's beyond rehabilitation; is
25
A Without seeing the device I couldn't answer
l
Page 85 - Page 88 (22)
1738
\lin l
-~cript II
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September IO, 2009
Page89
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that question.
Q And if you take something that is a GCA
firearm and you ... I don't know, modify it or
just ... Jet me change the example. If you start
with a GCA fireann and you take parts off of it and
those parts don't themselves constitute any kind of
firearm, and you mate that with a MAC machine gun,
have you of necessity made a new machine gun?
A Could you give me an example?
Q I don't know. Well, what if you -- I
mean, what if you took a MAC machine gun and, I
don't know, just replaced some parts on it and
somehow brought about a caliber conversion, I guess
put a new barrell on it and somehow modified the
chamber so that it would accommodate a different
caliber. Is that necessarily a new machine gun?
A No, we would have to look at it and see
exactly your example.
Q Okay. And that would be true ... I guess
what you're saying if you took that barrell off of
some other fireann, the barrell in and of itself
obviously is not a fireann, right?
A Correct.
Q So you could put that on a MAC and you
haven't necessarily made a new machine gun?
Page91
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what exactly the counsel's office's role is in their

review of the classification report.
A They are strictly advisory on legal
determinations, classifications under the NFA and GCA,
and grammatical issues with our reports.
Q Do they have any role in reviewing the
technical substance of the report?
A No, they do not.
Q Who does have purview over the technical
substance of the report?
A In chain it would be the FEO, myself, then
Chief Spencer.
Q And nobody else?
A And nobody else.
MR. VISCOMI: That's all I've got.
(Thereupon, the deposition was concluded at
12:25 p.m.).
Page 90
1
2
3
4
5
A Correct.
Q Okay. So is the lesson if you take
something that qualifies as a firearm, a GCA

firearm, and mate it with a MAC, you of necessity
have made a new machine gun, but if you take parts
6 off of a firearm, you may or may not make a new
7 machine gun, depending on the specifics?
8
A Depending on the specifics, yes.
9
MR. MONROE: I don't have any more
questions.
10
11
MR. VISCOMI: Could we have a short break?
12
MR. MONROE: Sure.
13
MR. VISCOMI: And then I think we'll have
14
a few follow-up questions.
15
MR. MONROE: Okay, all right.
16
17
approximately 12: 15 p.m. and the proceedings
18
subsequently resumed at approximately 12:21
p.m. with all parties present).
19
20
DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. VISCOMI:
Q Mr. Vasquez, during your testimony with
22
23 Mr. Monroe, you had discussed the role of the chief
24 counsel's office in reviewing a classification
25 report. I was wondering if you could clarify for us
\lin-l-'Hri)lt ~
Page 92
l
CBRTlPICATB
2 G B 0 R G I A1
3 COUNTY or rot.TONI
4
I hereby certify tht the for99oing trancript
5 wa taken down, a1 ttd in th caption, and th
6 proceeding vera reduced to typewriting under my
1
B
direction nd control.
I further certify that th trancript i1 a true
9 and correct record of the evidence given at th 1aid

10 proceeding.
ll
I further certify thet I . . neither a relative or
12
13
amployee or attorney or counsel to any of the partie,
14
metter.
15
16
17
18
nor financially or othervi intere1ted in thi

Tbi1 the 24th day of 8epteaber, 2009.
l9
20
21
22
23
24
25
1739
ALICI I. siRllORs, 1-11!13
(23) Page 89 - Page 92
RIF

Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
Page93
DISCLOStJllll
STATS OF GBORGIA
COUNTY
DBPOSITION OF RICllAJlD
or l'ULTON
VASQUEZ
5
6
Puruant to Articl 8.B. of th Rul nd

RlJUlationa of th Board of Court Reporting of the
Judicial Council of Georgia, I mak the following
diaeloaura1
9
10
I am a Gorgia Cartifid court Raportr. I am

hr aa an indepndent contractor for Amariean
Court Rporting Company, Inc.
11
Tb firm wa eontactd bI th off ic of

John Monro, Bquira, to prov de eourt reporting
rvie for thi dapoaition. Th firm will not ba
taking tbi depoition under any contract that i
probibitd bI OCGA 1514-37 la) and lb).
Option 1 Tb firm ha no contraet/agrecaeat
to provid rporting rvic with any party to th
caaa, any counal to th ea or anr rportr or
reporting agancy f rma whom a raf arra Jaight hava
bean aada to covr thi dapoition . Th fiaa will
charge it uual and cuatmaary rat to all partiaa
in tha eaaa, and a financial diacount will not be
givn to any party to thia litigation.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
(Signatur of Attornaya optional)
20
21
22
23
24
25
XLtC! ! . stARONs, CCR B-1193
Bptembar 10, 2009
Xl:Eorny !or Pie!nHU
be Ea
XEEornay for beundanE
bata
Page 94
BRRATA
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
IN RB1
s H8
United Stat of America

v. On Hiatory Arm11 Modal 54RccS 7 . 62X54R
Celibar Converaion SYtem Machin Gun,
Srial No. Vl
CIVIL ACTION Flt.a N01
1109CV-0192GBT
DBPOSITION TAllBN ON1
Septamber 10, 2009
I have rad th trancript of 'lllfiY depoition

end find that no change ere nacry.
Having rad th trancript of 'lllfiY depoition,
I wih to mak the following change (Pl tate
raaaon.)
Page I Lin I
Chang I Ruon
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
lltdlXltD vXSQOBZ
21
22
Sworn to and lll>cribd bafora me,
23
24
Thie _ _day of
25
My Commiion Bxpir
Page 93 - Page 94 (24)
1740
\lin-l -Snip1 ll
RIF

1
1 (12)
35:6,10;36:3,7;
37:4;38: I9;39:2;
40:4,6,9;41: I ;73:19
11: 10 (I)
47:21
11: 17(1)
47:22
11:43 (I)
73: 15
11:50 (I)
73: 16
I Ith (1)
67:21
12:15 (1)
90:17
12:21 (1)
90: 18
12:25 (1)
91 :18
124 (I)
21 : 19
l24th (1)
21 : 19
16 (1)
23:1
175 (4)
42:4;43:11,13,16
18 (5)
40:4,6,9;41 :2,8
1982 (5)
1I :20;60:7,8,24;
62:7
1989 (6)
40: 12, I 5;41 :5,8,
l 1;43:19
1996 (1)
6:11
1999 (6)
6:8,11 ;51 :16;
62:14, 17,21
2
2 (9)
39: 12,16;43:12;
77:9, l 9,24;78:7,21;
79:22
20 (I)
54: 16
2003 (3)
6:3,8;36: 15
2007 (l)
37:10
2008-124 (1)
21 : 19
21-year (1)
6:23
'fin-l -~lriptOc
Richard Vasquez
September I 0 t 2009
3 (2)
65:20,21
3310.48(1)
39:20
360 (1)
16:10
4
4 (14)
66:15,18;68:8, 10,
11,15,17,18,19;69:5,
13;70:3;74:12,21
40 (1)
13:18
45 (1)
60:12
472 (4)
66: 1,4, l 2;68:25
5
5 (7)
67: 17,21;68:9,13,
I 5;69:9,12
50 (2)
I 1:5;16:10
54-year-old (1)
9:25
6
607 (2)
66:2,18
7
7.62X54 (3)
76: 14, l 9;82:25
8
82 (1)
62:3
82-8 (2)
73:21 ;74:2
83-5 (1)
73:21
89 (1)
40:17
8X8 (1)
28:24
9
97 (1)
6:11
9mm (I)
60:12
17:19;63:6;64:1
again (12)
15:4;33:11;43:10;
59:2;62:2,11;63:1;
abbreviation (1)
65:6;72:13;75:1 l ;
40:3
79: 18;88: 14
ability (1)
agents (5)
15:14
6:15;8:4;13:13, 19,
able (3)
21
4 :25;57:15;77:15
ago
(1)
above (I)
65:19
82:7
agree (3)
absolutely (8)
19:7,7;44:17
15:25; 16:23;37: 1;
62: 19,2I ;65:9;70:1 O; agreed (4)
55:2 I ,24;56:9;
86:3
82: 16
accept (1)
agreeing (1)
84:23
31 : 1
accepted (1)
ahead
(1)
13: 16
28: 13
accommodate (1)
air (2)
89:15
17:11,12
accomplish (1)
AK-47 (3)
76:2
84: 19;85:8;86:10
accomplishes (2)
Alcohol (1)
82:22;83 :4
5:19
accurate (4)
allow (2)
11:18;17:23;
28:6;77:8
18:24;84:4
allowable (I)
achieved (1)
65:12
7:10
allowed (3)
acknowledged (1)
74:24;77:25;82:5
77: 10
allowing
(1)
Act (9)
71 : 16
12: 11 , 12,12,17;
almost (1)
14:9,11,13;24 :19;
84:20
87:24
along (2)
actively (1)
5:13;53:18
73:4
aluminum (3)
activities (3)
52:8,9;85:2
33: 17,25;34:3
always (10)
actually (9)
9: l ;28: 19;36: 17,
8:11;11 : 15;21:3;
l 8,21;54:14;59: 17;
23:25;29:6;44:24;
64: 18;79: 10;83:22
59:8;68:25;7I :11
America (1)
Adam (1)
7:8
16:14
amount (I)
add (2)
33:14
24:11;85:14
analogy (1)
added (1)
23:17
84:22
analyst
(5)
address (3)
9:8,12, 12, 14, 18
19: 10;84:6,8
analysts (2)
administrative (2)
8:22;9:4
9:9,15
answered (1)
admissions (I)
62:25
34:24
anticipation (I)
advice (1)
38:20
33:18
apparently (1)
advisory (1)
69:10
91 :3
appears (1)
affirmative (I)
19:23
41 :21
apply (I)
affirmatively (3)
1741
74:16
appropriate (3)
39: I 1;40:21 ;77:6
appropriately (2)
4:25;5: 10
approval (1)
56:23
approved (12)
29:22;61:2,4,6,1 O;
62:3,11,13, 17,22;
70:4;73:9
approving (I)
73 :3
approximately (6)
47:2I ,22;73:15, l 6;
90:17, 18
AR-15 (3)
84:19,19,25
area (3)
17:12;48:16,17
areas (2)
42:13,14
argumentative (1)
26:24
Armament (I)
60:12
armorer (I)
10:9
Arms (I)
12:12
Army's (I)
10:3
around (3)
11: 16;52:7;59:19
arrangements (1)
20:24
Asia (1)
7:7
aspect (1)
18:2
assembling (I)
12: l
assigned (4)
16:15;20:15,18;
21 :7
assignment (I)
20:3
assignments (1)
21:18
assigns (4)
20:11 ;21 :2,8,13
assistant (9)
5:23,25;7:22;
12:10;79:10,13,19;
81 :10,13
assume (1)
55:12
Assuming (2)
40: 11 ;48:22
assumption (1)
5:8
ATF(35)
4: 12,14;6:6;7:2 l;
(1) 1-ATF
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
8:3,3;9:4;12:10,14,
17,23;13:17,21;
23:11;29:22;36:19;
37:5;38:13,16;39:20;
41 :3,13;42:8,12,12,
12;43:14;45:11;
48:22;50:20;60:7,24;
62:22;74: 11t15
Atlanta (S)
45:6,10;48: 15,17;
50:2
attached (2)
25:7;58:12
Attachment (2)
34:23;35:3
attempt (1)
14:23
attempting (1)
51:21
Attorney (1)
49:23
Attorney's (S)
46:2,17;47:3;
49:18,20
attributed (1)
9:10
audit (4)
18:4,9;38:11,12
authorize (1)
78:14
automatic (3)
85:1,3,6
automatically (20)
49:25;55:9, I 0,14,
23;56: I, 11;60:1,5,6,
23;6I:16,20;78: 1,5;
79:2;83:21;87:19;
88:6,21
available (I)
20:16
aware (8)
39:8;53: 14;62:8,
19;7I:19,22;81: I 5;
87:9
away (3)
24:22;28:6;40:23
B
back (26)
19:9;22:8;25: 15;
27:20,24;28: I 0;29:2;
31:9;32:13;35: 17;
38:23;46:25;50: 19;
52:3;54:15;70:1 I;
77: 15,23;78:7,JO, 13,
19;79:21,23;80:23;
81:7
background (1)
9:23
backsplash (1)
17:1
backward (I)
Atlanta - Claimant's (2)

59:20
badly (1)
38:1
bar (2)
58; 14,25
barreled (1)
23:8
barrell (12)
11 : 17;22;25;23:1,
I ;24 ~ 18,21 ;25:2,4;
77: I 0;89: 14,20,21
Barrett (2)
11 :5,8
Bartlett (1)
12:15
based (7)
24:4;32:4;36: i 9,
20;56;18;75:7;82: 19
basic (2)
6:25;1 l:l
basically (3)
22:25;49:22;7I:15
basis (5)
17:17;19:2;23:19;
54:14;64:1 I
battery (1)
59:12
bearing (1)
43 :22
become (3)
64:6;84;15,16
becomes (3)
14:22;86: 19;87: 19
begins (1)
21:21
behalf(3)
4:12,14;8:2
behind (2)
15:20;28:24
belt (7)
26: 13,20;57: 14,20;
59:17, 18,19
Beretta (I)
10:5
best (5)
35:4;39: I ;64:20;
67:9;79: 15
better (1)
68:12
beyond (1)
86:25
big (I)
65:17
bit (1)
68:7
blank (I)
85:2
block (5)
56:25;57:3,4,7;
83:20
blocking (2)
58:14,25
blower (I)
75:10
bolt (26)
26: 13,20;57: 17' 19;
58:6,7,7;59:1,3,9, I 0,
15, 16;60:4,13,18,25;
61:2,8,10;62: 1,5,16,
24;63:3;74:15
both (9)
8: 12, 13; 12:4;29:8;
45: 17;63: 12, 16, 18;
72:22
box (4)
21: 16;28:22;53:7;
83:9
Branch (10)
6:1;12:23;15:24;
i 8:7;i9: 15;22:3;
37: 13;38: i 7;42:9,18
branches (2)
12:17;42:17
break (8)
5:12;14:19;47: 13,
18,25;60:22;73: 13;
90:11
brief(3)
47:20;73:14;90: 16
bring (2)
23:23;33:13
bringing (1)
57:12
broad (4)
41:20,22;84:5,7
brought (4)
81:3,5,7;89:13
bucket (1)
74:19
building (I)
21:1
built (4)
11:11;16:9;56:19;
59:8
bulk (1)
32:15
bullet (1)
16: 10
Bureau (1)
5:19
business (1)
11 :10
c
cable (4)
51: 15;52:9,13,16
caliber (13)
I 1:5;13:18;16:1 I;
60:12;76:10,15;
82:24;83: 11 ;87:7;
88:21,24;89: 13, 16
call (7)
22:7;23: 15;24:21;
25:24;26: I 0;32:24;
33:2
called (2)
23:25;42:3
calling (1)
38:10
came (14)
13:21;19:4,16;
23: 22;2 7 :24;28:1 O;
40:23;45:25;51 :4;
52:2;53:24;56: JO, 13;
60:7
camming (1)
59:13
can (21)
5: 13; I 0:21; 15: 19;
23:25;3 I :21 ;34:2;
39: l 9;40:7;4 l :20;
43: I 0;51 :24;54:13;
57:19;75:11;82:20;
83:7,8,18;85:19;
87:21,23
capabilities (1)
16:10
capability (1)
62:6
capable (5)
52: 11 ;55:5,8;
83:20;87:18
capacity (I)
58:11
carbine (3)
13: 13,17,20
career (3)
6:23;7:6;12:22
cartridge (I)
65:17
cartridges (2)
64:25;65: 13
case (18)
8:22; 14:23;18: 12;
19:5;21 :3;22:12,21;
29:22;3 l :8, I 5;39:2;
43:23;44:1,5;67:5;
70: 15;82: 13;86:23
cases (4)
4: I 5;8:4;29:21;
77:3
Category (1)
39:25
caught (1)
58:24
caused (1)
82:3
certain (S)
13:9;42:13, 14;
64:18;77:3
certification (2)
17:10,14
certifications (4)
16:22;17:17,21;
18:1
certified (2)
10:2,9
certify (3)
1742
17:11,12,12
chain (S)
51 :5;53:25;54:2,5;
91 :11
chamber (7)
13:6; 15:3;59: 12,
21,22;61 :22;89:15
change (8)
28:2,3;40: 19,21,
22;77: 11 ;82:5;89:4
changed (3)
41:11;79:8;88:23
changes (15)
40:3,5,6,8,17, 18,
23,24;41 :1,3,8,14,15,
23;73:8
changing ( 1)
65:9
Chapter (2)
43:11,12
chapters (2)
42:3,4
characteristics (2)
60:25;85:15
charge (1)
16:12
check (4)
I 5:3;54: 14;58: 17,
18
checked (1)
37:12
checklist (3)
38:3,3,5
chief (34)
5:23,25;7:23,23;
10:22;11:2;12:10,15;
27:24;28:3,9;30: 12,
17;3I:13;37: 13;38:6,
8;44:14,16;50:8;
68:3,16;72:3,8, 10,15,
16;79: 10, 13, 19;
81: 10, I 3 ;90:23;
91:12
chopping (I)
25:24
chronological (1)
19:10
circumstance (3)
77:6,18;88:1 I
circumstances (11)
4:11,13;46:6;54:8;
78:24;79:6,7 ,20;
80:7;81 :2;83:16
civil (1)
4:15
civilian (2)
10:4;78:8
claimant (3)
49: 15;50: I 3;76:23
Claimant's (9)
35:6,I 0;36:3,7;
39: l 2, l 6;65:2 I;
66:15;67:17
\lin-L-~cli pi
RIF

clamp (1)
15:19
clarification (5)
5:6,7;42: I 5;48:3;
60:8
clarify (6)
46:24;69:15,21;
77: 17;78: 16;90:25
clarity (I)
26:16
classification (38)
23:6,10,21 ;24:9,
25;25: 11,18;26:14;
27: 11,16,21;30:2;
31 :25;32:11,16;
34: 18;43 :17,20,25;
44:3;49:1;55:20;
66:5;71 : 10;72:2;
74: I 6;76:3,4;77: 12;
78: 15;80:4,24;8 I :4,
6, I 2;82:11 ;90:24;
91 :2
classifications (2)
36:20;91 :4
classified (10)
55 :7;56:23;76:8;
79:24;80:22;8I : 16;
83: 13,21 ;86: 13;
87:12
classify (6)
12:11 ; 14:9,l I;
23: 16;44: I 0;57:5
classifying (2)
12:6;34: 14
cleaning (I)
16:20
cleanliness (1)
17:11
cleans (I)
16:25
clear (I)
84:17
clearance (I)
17:6
clients (1)
11 :12
close (2)
54:13;71 :3
closes (I)
57:1 7
cobbled (I)
14:17
collateral (1)
16:16
college (4)
9:25;10:1,13,14
Colt (1)
13:16
Columbia (1)
7:8
combat (I)
11 :7
comlng(3)
'1i11-l -'wript(!1.
Richard Vasquez
September IO, 2009
12: 14;17:6;36:22
commander (1)
7:4
commercial (1)
86:11
commercially (I)
17: 1
communicated (1)
41:18
Community (I)
10:14
comparing (1)
34:10
comparison (3)
32:3,5;33:4
comparisons (2)
34: 10;55 :19
compiled (1)
42: 17
complete (11)
23:9;24:9,24,25;
25: 11 ;27:23;35:14;
52: 10;53:9;64:14;
85:16
completed (1)
27:16
completely (2)
16:6,7
complicated (1)
20:14
component (3)
19:24;58:2;87: 17
components (2)
57: 1;87:5
composing (1)
29:6
comprehensive (3)
32:8,14,21
computer (2)
28:22,23
concept (3)
51 :21;53:3,1 l
concise (1)
64:14
conclude (4)
55:25;59:25;75:8,
22
concluded (2)
55:12;91:17
conclusion (9)
28:7;55: 13,16,17;
56: 10,13,17;74:17;
75:12
conclusions (6)
31 :10, 14;44:18;
55:21 ;72:7,8
concurred (2)
72:7,9
concurrence (1)
71 : 16
concurring (1)
72: 10
conducts (1)
38:15
confer (I)
55:21
confers (3)
46: 13 ;47: l 5;56:4
confident (I)
39:9
configuration (2)
53:6,20
confirm (I)
47:6
confused (I)
46:16
confusion (1)
48: 1
conscientious (1)
25:22
consider (2)
51 :7;86:16
considered (2)
15:23;57:8
considers (I)
74:11
consist (4)
12: 1,2; I 6:4;39:23
constitute (I)
89:6
consultations (1)
26:6
consulted ( 1)
26:4
contact(3)
17:4,5;54:9
contain (I)
31 : 10
contains (2)
69:12,12
continuously (4)
57: l 5;58:15,22;
59:1
contract (I)
60:16
Control (5)
12:11,12;14:9;
24:19;87:24
conversation (1)
26:17
conversion (6)
64:24;80:14;
83 :11 ;87:7,7;89: 13
convert (I)
65:i2
converting (3)
76:6;82:24;87: 15
copy (1)
67:16
Corporation (1)
60:12
Corps (14)
6:23;7:4;10:23,24;
11 :3,7,10,11,20,22,
22; 13:4,4, 10
correctly (2)
date (8)
36: l 5;74:4, l 4;
75:2;80: 1,2;81 :6;
85: 12
day (3)
65:4,10;67:6
days (2)
20: 16;65: 19
decide (I)
85:24
decided (3)
36:22;52: 1;60: 16
decision (4)
24:3;44;10;73:4,
10
defendant (38)
18: 14;19: 1 I;
20: 10, I 8;2 l :4,24;
23:7,23;24:5,6;30:3;
44:10;50:24;51 :14,
18,22;55: 13,25;
56:11 ,17,18;57:6;
70:23;71 :23;75:8,13,
17;76: 10, 12,23;
82:13, 17,20,20;83:3,
6,8;86:23
definition (1)
24:1 9
degree (2)
10:1; 16:10
demonstrate (4)
49:25;52; 11 ;55 :4,
9
Department (4)
6:15,20;7:3;21 :22
CROSS-EXAMINATION (I) depending (3)
4:5
84: 14;90:7,8
cube (1)
deployed (2)
28:24
7:6,7
current (3)
Deponent (3)
7:21 ,22;78:21
46:14;47: 15;56:4
currently (I)
deposition (4)
9:25
4:9;27:19;66:6;
custom (2)
91 :17
11 :9,11
depositions (1)
CV (1)
4:14
describe (8)
8:16
cycled (2)
7:20;9:22; 10:21;
57:10,21
12:8;13:1;14:6;
cycles (2)
31 :21;57:22
described (2)
58:19,19
cycling (1)
8:10;33: 17
58:9
descr ibing (3)
17:21 ;54:2 1;58: 10
description (I)
D
19:21
design (10)
Dahl! (1)
50:9
11 :13,15,16;55:10;
daily (4)
60:25;63:9;64:24;
19:2;23: 19;54:14;
83:5;84:21;85:14
designated (2)
64:11
data (1)
60:10;70:14
20:2
designed (17)
27:23;41 :7
correspondence (2)
29:21,23
counsel (7)
12: I 6;27:24;28:3,
10;39: 16;70: 15;72:8
counsel's (9)
30:12,17;31:13;
44: 14;72:4,15, 16;
90:24;91 :1
County (2)
45:16;48:1 l
couple (2)
4:20;19:9
course (3)
24:24;25:20;39:7
courses (1)
10:17
court (1)
4:21
cover (3)
21 : 12, 14;40: I
covers (I)
42:12
Coweta (2)
45:16;48:1 I
create (I)
38:24
created (1)
51:17
creates (2)
42:10,19
criminal (6)
4 :16;8:4;14:23;
22: 12;29:21 ,22
1743
(3) clamp - designed
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 1O, 2009
24:20;25 :8;26:2 I;
52:12;55: 1,2,5,14,
22;56: l, 11;57:13;
59:25;60:5,13;61 : 16,
20
desk (1)
25:24
destroyed (I)
86: 18
destruction (I)
83:19
detachment (2)
7:4,5
detail/strip (1)
32:23
detailed (2)
33:7;34:9
details (2)
73:10;80:10
determination (7)
14: 19; 15:2, 13, 15;
78: I 3;80:25;81 :3
determinations (1)
91:4
determine (6)
9:7;14:14;23:8;
85:2,4,12
determined (5)
57: I 2;74:3;78:20,
25;79:21
develop (1)
53 :11
developed (3)
13:3;60: I 7;65:5
developing (1)
11 :4
deviate (I)
64:20
device (13)
64:24;75:23,25;
79: 18,20;80: I4;
82: 11 ;83:11,13;87:6,
7,7;88:25
devices (1)
74:3
different (16)
13:15,15;23:20;
30:6;38: l 7;42:9, 17;
45:24;5 l: l 7;54:22;
64:9;65: 16;68:15;
83: I ;88:21 ;89:15
d ifficult (I)
5 :4
dignitaries (1)
6:18
diploma (1)
9:24
Diplomatic (5)
6:10,13,14;13: 11 ,
14
DIRECT(l)
90:20
direction (2)
desk - expertise (4)

19:4,5
directive (1)
44:4
directives (3)
41 :3,14;42:21
directly {S)
19: 14;28:23,25;
69:23;70:2
disagree (2)
31:14;44:17
disagreed (2)
81:5,18
disagreeing (1)
30:25
disassembled (2)
32:3;71 :7
discharged (I)
7:18
discount (1)
65:8
discovery (2)
63:20;76:22
discuss (2)
27:21;28:16
discussed (6)
27:25;28:11;
55: 18;82:23;83:5;
90:23
discussing (1)
65:15
discussion (4)
9:17;43: 16;63:22;
76:21
display (1)
37:14
dissembled (2)
55:2;71 :3
disseminated (I)
41 :17
dissension (1)
82:10
dissent (1)
82:14
distinction (1)
69:15
distinguish (1)
26:22
Division (1)
11 :24
DNA (1)
15:25
document (19)
9:6,10;40:11 ;41 :4;
42:7,8,10,18,19;
65:23;66:11 , 18,19,
21 ;67:23;68:25;72:9,
10;74:7
documented (2)
64:5;67:2
documents (4)
8:21;9:3,4;69:16
done (19)
19: l 9;22:2;27:21 ;
34: 18;49:14;50:1, 17,

20,22;51 : I ;53: 15;
69:24;77:2,3,21;
79:22;81 :12;83:18;
86:9
down (8)
4:21 ;5:4;27:25;
28: I 0;38:3,4;64:8, l 0
draft (6)
25:23;68:1 l,17;
69:17,20;70:1
drill (4)
85:1,5,11 ,24
drilled (2)
84:22;85:9
drilling (I)
85:22
drink (1)
5:14
duct (3)
50:22;5 I :9;53 :6
duly (1)
4:3
during (7)
11 :6;31 : I8;32:7;
33: l 6;66:6;83:24;
90:22
duties (2)
7:20;16: 16
duty (3)
7:2,2;43:13
dynamite (I)
23: 16
E
E-8 (I)
7:12
earlier (4)
24: 11 ;55:I 8;66:6;
82:23
easy (I)
24:21
Ed (1)
12:15
edits (5)
27:25,25;28:1,6, I 1
educational (I)
9:22
effect (1)
10:9
efficiency (I)
85:23
efficiently (1)
28:19
eight (2)
8:2,16
either (6)
19:7;22: 14;44:17;
60:12;63:10;65 :3
electronic (1)
41 :13
else (8)
19:25;44: I2;50:7;
64:9;80:4;83:7;
91 :13,14
embassies (2)
6:16;7:5
embassy (1)
7:2
employed (7)
5: 18,19;44:1,4,7;
62:14,22
employee (1)
6:20
employees (1)
45:12
employment (2)
5:20;43: 19
enclosed (2)
16:6,7
end (2)
23:20;36: 15
enforce (1)
79:11
Enforcement (14)
5:24;6:5;8: 1,15,17,
24;9:2,11;12:9;19:1;
39:10,21;52:23;
64:16
ensued (3)
47:20;73:14;90:16
ensure (7)
12: 18;14:7;27:22;
38: 13;57:3;64: 19;
78:4
ensured (I)
38:9
ensures (I)
16:25
entire (5)
18:6;23:5;26: 17;
31 :25;42:19
entirety (2)
23:3,18
entitled (1)
70:9
environment (I)
11 :7
erroneously (1)
62:20
especially ( 1)
9:3
essentially (3)
63 :2;86:5;87:6
estimation (1)
64:23
evaluate (6)
9: 12; 14:7;22:4,17,
24;23:2
evaluated (7}
13:5,8;22:4;29:1 l,
l 1;33:13;56:21
evaluating (5)
9:18;14:2;26:3;
28:18;32:1
1744
evaluation (14)
8:7;22:14,16;
24: 14, 15, 16,24;28:4;
29:3;3 I :23;32:21;
44:20;57:2;72:7
evaluations (5)
8:3,4,6,10;32:22
even (8)
26:16;31:14;
35:23;65:2;74:12;
80: I0;84:5;86:4
eventually (1)
13:16
Everybody (1)
16:15
everyone (1)
82:16
evidence (6)
9:13; 19:20,22;
20:1,5;66:23
exact (1)
36:15
exactly (9)
24:24;30:14;
3 3:20;34 :6;5 3:20;
54:25;58:1;89: 18;
91 :1
EXAMINATION (1)
90:20
examinations (I)
42:4
examined (I)
4 :3
example (7)
68:23 ;69: 16;
79: I 8;86:5;89:4,9, 18
examples (4)
27: I ;84: 17;85: 17,
21
excerpts (3)
39:20,22;68 :9
Excuse (I)
66:22
Exhibit (35)
35:6,10,13,14;
36:3,7;37:4;38: 19;
39:2,12,16;43:12;
65:20,21;66:15,I8;
67:17,21;68:7,8,10,
11,12,15,15,17,18,
19,24;69:5,9,12,13;
70:3;73:19
exist (1)
43:21
expecting (I)
70:18
experience (6)
10:18,21;11 :25;
12:5,24;13:22
expert (2)
70:15,19
expertise (1)
15:1
\I in-U-SHip11<
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009

experts (3)
31 :4,5;50:13
explain (2)
34:2;40:7
explore (I)
87:21
Export (1)
12:12
extent (1)
58:9
extremely (3)
38:8;39:9;71: 11
F
fabricated (2)
10:25,25
face (1)
68:20
facilitate (4)
11 :8;49:1;52:4;
85:10
Facility (29)
10:23; 13:8;15 :23,
25; 16: 1,2,2,4,6,9,13,
21,25; 17: 18,25; 18:6,
8;21 :6,8;32:22;45:3,
4,8;47:4;48:22;
50:20;5l:16;54: 15;
85:19
faclllty's (1)
18:4
facts (I)
71 :23
failed (I)
53 :20
fair (5)
37: 16;72:12;73: l;
84:3;87:1
Fairfax (1)
10:14
fairly (1)
73:2
familiar (3)
34:25;84: l 8;85:18
far (2)
12:20;50:16
fast (4)
61:7;62:12;63:2,7
feature (1)
63:10
features (12)
55: 10,25;56: 16;
57: 10;59:24;63:9, l 3,
18;71 : 15;77:25;
78:11;84:21
fed (4)
26:13,20;59: 17,18
federal (1)
8:2
feet (1)
54:16
FEO (13)
\lin-l -ScrijltQJ
8:14;9:5,7,20;
13:23;20:12;21 :8,l I,
12,13,13,17;91:1 l
FEO's (3)
16:14,19;25:19
few (5)
25: l 9;27:9;65: 19;
68:9;90:14
fill (2)
85:13,25
filled (1)
86:6
final (6)
30: IO, l 5;68:13;
69:17;72:6;73 :8
finalized (3)
28:9,12;69:23
finally (1)
9:25
find (1)
74:7
findings (4)
28:2;71 :13;72:9,
11
fine (1)
46:8
finish (3)
4:22;10:1,17
Ii nls hed (3)
28: 15;29: 13;84:3
fire (44)
11: 12;14:8,8,8,15,
20,21,23;15:5,7,12,
13,20,20; 16:6,9;
44:24,25;45:7,15;
48:9;51 :7, 14,18,22;
52:2,10,22;53:4,8;
54:3;55: 14;57: 15,19,
20;58: 15,20,22;59: 1;
60: I,4,5;64:25;65: 13
firearm (61)
9:19;13:3,7;14:2,7,
10, 14, 17;15:5,7,14,
15, l 9; 19:24,24;
24: 17;26:3;29: 1O;
32:2,4,6,23;34:14;
56: 18,24;58:2, 18;
61:8,11;63:10;75:10;
77:11;80:12;83:25;
84:2, l 2;87: 12, 13, I6,
I 7, 18,23,24,24;88:5,
6,7,13,13, 15, l 8, l 9,
22;89:3,5,7,21 ,22;
90:3,4,6
Firearms (61)
5:20,23;6: 1,5, 12;
8:1,15,16,24;9:1,l l;
IO:19; 11 :9;12:6,9,
11 ,12,13,17,20,21,
22,23,24;13:23;
14:11,13,23;16:3;
18:7;19: I ;22:3;
39: 10,21,25;43: 17,
20,25;44:3;52: 10,23;
53:9;54:22;59: 16;
60:3,4,9;61 :3,14,18;
62:3, I6,22;64: 16;
74: IO, I9;77:23;
84: 18;86:9,12;87:1l
firecracker (1)
23 :16
fired (16)
24:20;25:9;54:5;
56: 14;58:4,16;59:1,
2,3;60: 13,18;61: 15,
l 9;62:4,23,24
fires (11)
26: 12, 19,20;32:7;
45: 1;48:2,7;52:24;
59:23;61 :9;63:3
firing (36)
I 4:2;48:22;50:22;
51 : 1,8;52:4,11,17,
20;53: 18;54:14,19,
24;55: 1,5,8;57: 14,
l 6, l 7, l 8;59:6,8,8, l 0,
12,16,22;6l:15,19,
21 ;62:4,5,13,23;
63 :8;83:21
firings (3)
45: I 9;46:23;50: 17
first (14)
I 1:6;19:15;40:4;
48:21,23;50: 19;51: I,
8;53 : 18;54: I 2;66:4,
I 1;73:23;85:1 l
fit (1)
65 :17
five (1)
47:17
fixed (12)
57:16,17;59:7,l 1,
16;61 : 15,19,21 ;62:4,
12,23;63:8
fixture (2)
14:22;15:17
now(2)
8:8;17:12
folder (2)
21: 11;40:22
follow (3)
37:5;43:8;78: 17
followed (3)
39:2,6;87 :20
following (1)
25:10
follows (1)
4:4
follow-up (1)
90:14
forces (1)
7:1
foreign (1)
86:9
Foreword (1)
39:24
form (9)
29:12;74:12,21;
77:9,19,24;78:6,2 l;
79:22
formalized (2)
37:22;70:1
formalizing (2)
37:16,19
format (2)
29:22,24
former (1)
79:13
fonvard (4)
58:8;59:13, I 9;
61 :I
FOSTER (8)
35:22;45:23;46:1,
13;47:16,19;50:8;
56:5
four (8)
46:22;47:5,6;48: 1,
3,6,7;50: 17
fourth (3)
47:11,12;48:14
freely (2)
74:12,21
front (1)
40:1
FTB (14)
8:23;9:4;15:22;
19: 11,14,16;34: 14;
42:5;43:2;44:9;77:3,
21 ;79:21;82:1l
FTB's (1)
53:7
function (6)
9:15;12:21 ;57:13,
23;58:17,18
functional (1)
11 : 19
functioning (1)
12:20
functions (4)
9:9;14:3,3,4
further (5)
18:25;22:18;
24: 16;25:17;70:6
G
Galbraith (I)
16:14
gas (1)
57:14
gave (4)
25: l 6;34:7;35:21 ;
67:9
GCA(7)
88: 13, l 5, l 9;89:2,
5;90:3;91 :4
general (7)
8:5,25;10:16;
19:24;26:9;34:20;
1745
60:17
Generally (4)
22: I;25: I 9;59:9;
63:12
generate (I)
29:17
gets (2)
20: 17;21: 14
given (2)
4:9,17
gives (2)
21:11;58:19
giving (2)
27:1;36:6
Glock (I)
10:5
goes (4)
19:25;20: 12;
21 :12;29:7
good (3)
l 5:8;58:20;87:2
Goss (1)
50:9
government (3)
19:21;45:12;60:16
grammatical (3)
28:2;30: 19;91 :5
grammatically (1)
30:16
great (1)
47:19
group (1)
13:9
guess (19)
21: I;27: 15;4I :10;
43:2;5 l :24;59:2;
68:4,10;74:5,11 ,17;
80:21 ;81 :20;82:9;
84: 11 ;86:23;87:2;
89:13,19
guidance (14)
18:20;22:11,19,21,
23;23 :9,22;24:3, l O;
25:11,16,17;26:18;
33:18
guided (2)
71 :11,13
guilty (1)
86:1
Gulf(l)
11 :6
Gun (95)
12:11;14:9,10,12;
24:19;26: l 2, l 9;30:3;
32:25;44: 10;52: 15;
55:8,8,22;56: 19;
57:1,6,8,13,14;60:1,
14,23,24;63:3,8,l 1;
64:24;65:1,12;74:1 l,
16;76:5,7,8,9;77: 13,
14, I 4, 15,20;78:6,15,
21;79:1,21;80:5,19,
23,25;82: 17,22;83:4,
(5) experts - Gun
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
10,12, 13,14,14, 19,

22,22;84:2, 15,16,21,
23;85:6,8,10,15;
86: 1,2, l 6, 19,20,25;
87:8,14,16,19,22,22,
24,25;88:7,9,23,24;
89:7,8,11,16,25;90:5,
7
guns (14)
59:9,17,18;61 :I;
74:3,5, l 9;76:4;
78: 10;79:24,25;85:5,
7;86:13
gunsmith (2)
10:4;11:10
gunsmith's (1)
16: I
Guy (2)
20:9;21:I7
guys (4)
25:21;28:20;
54: 13;56:3
H
H&K (1)
10:5
hammer (1)
57;18
hand (1)
21:20
hand-in-hand (1)
11:8
handle (1)
58 :6
hands (5)
11:6;13:9,13,19,20
happen (5)
22:9;3l:16;81 :9;
85:19;87:15
happened (4)
21:3;53:20;80:1 l,
13
happens (2)
21:5;84:15
happenstance (2)
54:18,20
hard (4)
61 :6;62:12;63:2,7
Harry (1)
50:8
head (6)
5:3;15:2;17:19;
63:6;64: 1;82:8
Headquarters (2)
11 :20;42:25
health (1)
17:22
helpful (1)
42:16
here's (1)
35:16
high (3)
guns - kind (6)

9:24;73:2,5
highest (1)
7:10
hired (2)
12:23;51: 16
hit (1)
61:23
hits (1)
59:21
hold (3)
52: 13;54: 1;58;7
holding (1)
54:6
hole (10)
84:22;85: l ,6,9, I I,
13,22,24;86:5,8
holes (2)
85:25;86:10
honorably (1)
7:18
HP (2)
ll:6;15:10
huh-uh (1)
5:3
I
idea (5)
51 : I 2,20;52:3,14;
53:24
identical (1)
84:20
identification (7)
21: 15;35:7;36:4;
39: 13;65;22;66: I 6;
67:18
Identify (2)
24:24;39: 19
ignite (1)
59:14
imagining (1)
84:11
Impact (I)
17:12
Implementation (2)
13:18;51:21
implemented (4)
36:16,17;41 :5;
53:13
implementing (2)
11:5;37:7
implied (1)
55:7
Import (3)
8:5,6;71:10
importable (1)
8:7
importation (I)
12:13
imported (2)
62:20;86:9
importer (1)
8:6
Importers (1)
23:19
improperly (1)
18:11
inches (1)
23:1
incident (1)
82:2
Included (4)
12:4;40: 17,18,24
includes (3)
40:2,6;41: I
Incorrect (1)
41 :2
Incorrectly (I)
18:10
Index (2)
39:24;41:20
indicate (1)
68:22
Indicated (1)
75:20
indication (1)
58:20
Indications (1)
86:8
Individual (1)
78:7
Industry (3)
9:1;12:16;15:9
Infantry (1)
7:1
Inferring (1)
86:14
information (I)
22:7
informing (1)
30:2
initial (4)
16: 16;50:21;
69:16;80:3
initially (1)
30:13
initials (2)
68:21,22
Initiated (1)
68:21
initiative (1)
82:7
injured (1)
14:22
inordinate (1)
33:14
input (1)
43:5
inquiry (1)
81:4
inside (1)
75:21
inspect (1)
71 :3
Inspected (1)
71 :7
Inspecting (2)
9:19;14:2
Inspection (7)
15:4;18:13,16;
38: 12;71 :12;75:7;
82:20
inspections (2)
38: I8;70:23
install (1)
75:25
installation (2)
57:1;85:10
installed (8)
I 7: 1;51 :23;54:2;
56:25;57:7;75:9;
79:1;87:13
Installing (3)
51: 13;52:3;82:23
Instance (3)
39:6;80: 11 ;82:9
Instances ( 4)
4:17;27:7;79:3, 17
instead (2)
25:23;69:23
instigated (1)
82:5
instructed (3)
I 1:1,2;23:2
Instruction (6)
64:10,11,13,13,16,
19
Instructlon s (2)
33:18;34:7
Instructor (5)
6: 12;7:7,8; l 0:22;
11:2
instrumental (1)
13:12
intended (I)
75:9
intending (1)
66:24
intention (3)
75:14,18;86:4
interchangeably (1)
8:23
interest (1)
71:10
internal (2)
9:4;38:11
interpretation (1)
75:16
Into (23)
11:6,22;13:9,13,
19,20;15:10,16;
28:25;29:6;4 I:5;
42: l 7;43:5;59:21;
61 :9;66:23;73:9;
76:7;8I:4;83:7,10;
85:9;87:16
introduce (1)
11:22
Introduced (1)
1746
11 :6
introducing (I)
13:12
introduction (1)
13:20
inventories (1)
38:14
Involved (6)
11:4,19;13:18;
18:16,18,20
Involvement (3)
18:23;44:15;54:1 l
Issues (1)
91:5
Italy (1)
7:2
Item (14)
8:6;20: 17;21: 15,
19,21;22:2,3,16;
23:5, 13, 18;24:2,21;
29:11
Items (7)
20: 14;2 I :9;22:6;
23 :20;5 3:8 ;68: 16;
79:23
J
Jean (1)
72:20
jeff (2)
35:2;50:8
Jerrs (1)
50:11
job (1)
19:21
jobs (1)
12:9
John (11)
22:15;37:12,15;
45:25;50:8;66:22;
67:23;68:3, l 6;69:23;
70:1
John's (1)
69:20
JRS (1)
67:23
judgment (1)
23:14
July (I)
67:21
K
keep (2)
4:20;28:1 l
keeps (1)
21:6
kind (12)
16:21;17:9,17;
38:11;44:6;51:13,22;
53:4;63:15;84:5;
86:14;89:6
'lin-l -St 1 iptr1<1
RIF

kinds (1)
87:4
king (1)
6:18
Klngery (26)
18: 13; 19:4;20: 19,
25;21 :3,23;22:20;
23:22;24:8;25: 16;
30:5,14;31:19;32:1 l;
33: 18;44:12;53:3;
56: 10;66: I ;69:3, 7;
70:22;7l :14,20,24;
72:2
Klngery's (3)
30:3;55: l 7;66:6
knew (2)
24:23;34:6
knowing (1)
34:1
knowledge (4)
39: I ;64:20;7 l :22;
82:19
known (4)
21 :24;58:16;
60:20;64:8
Knows (3)
22:12,13;63: 16
Kurt (1)
12:15
L
Lab (3)
13:6; 15: 11 ,24
laboratory (2)
15:22,24
lack (1)
68:12
language (1)
68:18
large (1)
69:13
last (1)
10:7
lastly (1)
59:5
later (11)
27:19;80: 1,2,24;
81 :2,6,22,25;84:22;
85 :12,24
lathe (I)
16:5
latitude (1)
52:23
law (2)
31 :5,6
layout (1)
21 :1
lead (2)
I 1:4; 16:24
least (1)
55:13
led (2)
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
56: 17;59:24
lert (1)
13:7
legal (4)
12:15;3I :IO,14;
91 :3
legend (1)
64:6
legendary (1)
60:10
legs (1)
5:15
Len (2)
49:13;68:2
less (4)
23:1;54:17,20;
73:3
lesson (1)
90:2
letter (27)
22:1,5;24:7,16;
29: 13, I 7' 19,20,24,
25;30:7;3 I :9;66:5;
67:6,21;68:2,16,20,
23,25;69:6,9 ,22,23'
25;70:1,11
level (2)
73:3,5
licensed (1)
78:9
life (2)
84:12;86:21
likely (2)
27:3;72:23
line (1)
40:21
lines (1)
53:19
literally (2)
29: I 0;60:21
little (3)
22:7;28: 13;68:7
loan (1)
7:3
lock (2)
59:13;61 :25
locks (1)
59:11
lock-up (1)
21:6
logged (1)
20: 11
logs (1)
20:2
long (4)
6:2,7; 12:22;83:2
longer (3)
74:23;79:4;82:21
look (13)
9:6; 14: 16,24; 19:3;
21:18;22:15;23:5,14,
17;33:2;43:10;
58:19;89:17
looked (4)
19:8;22:5;57: 11;
69:22
looks (9)
14:18;19:23;
20: 14,15;21 :2;40:12;
42:4,5;69:5
Lord (1)
10:14
lot (3)
25:20;45:16;59:15
maintains (1)
16:19
maintenance (1)
16:15
majority (5)
14: 16;15:4;28:25;
29:9;57:11
making (S)
12:2;55:19,20;
84:12,25
manner (4)
18: 18;28:5;37: 18;
M
65:16
manually (2)
M16 (1)
57:23;58:5
manuals (2)
84: 19
M16A2 (3)
40:18,20
I 1: 19,22; 13:17
manufacture (4)
M16s (1)
78:7,9;85:4, 14
manufactured (7)
13:15
M4(3)
61 :14;74:4,14,24;
13:13,17,20
75: I ;84:21 ;86:2
MAC(28)
manufacturer (13)
60:9, 11,20;6 I :24;
23:13;56:22;57:3;
64:24;65:12,18;
75: 14, 18,23,24;
75 :21;76:1,5,6,7,15,
77:24;78:10,11,20;
18;80: I 5, l 7;82:24;
85:23;86:1
manufacturers (6)
83 :11;87:8,14,22;
8:5; 13: 16;23: 19;
88:5,6,20;89:7,l 1,
24;90:4
62: I 5;84: 18;86: I0
machine (103)
manufacturer's (1)
14: I 0, 12; 16:5;
10:7
26:12, I 9;30:3;32:25; manufacturing (9)
44:10;55:8,8,22;
10: 18; 11 :25;I2:2;
56:19;57:1,5,8,12,
16: 1;75:23,25;83 :24;
14;59:9,17,18,25;
85: 16,19
many (11)
60: 14,24,25;63:3,8,
11 ;64:24,25;65:12;
I 0: 1,2,2; 19:2;
20: 14;22:6;27:7;
74:3,5,11,16,19;76:4,
5,7,8,9;77:12,13,14,
28: I ;60:9;64:22;
I 9;78:6,9, I 5,20,25;
85:5
79:21,24,25;80:5, 19, Marine (19)
23,25;82:17,22;83:4,
6:23;7:4,4,5; I 0:22,
9,10,I 1,13,14,14,19,
24;11 :3,7,10,11,20,
22,22;84:2, 15,21,23;
21,22,23,23; 13:2,4,4,
85:5,6,7,8, 10, 15;
10
Marines (2)
86:1,2,13,16, 19,20,
25;87:8,14,16,19,22,
6:24;7:1 I
marked (IO)
22,25;88:7,9,23,24;
89:7,8, I I, 16,25;90:5,
35:7,9;39: 13,15;
65 :22;66:16, 18;
7
machinist (2)
67:18,20;68:24
market (4)
10:3,3
MACs (1)
32:6;86:11 ;87:10,
11
60:24
mail (1)
Martin (3)
72:19,25;73:1
19:24
main (1)
Martin's (1)
57: 10
73:1
maintain (2)
Martinsburg (3)
5:21;36:14;72:16
16: 18;64:4
maintaining (1)
Master (2)
16:20
7:12,15
1747
mate (3)
88:5;89:7;90:4
matter (3)
49:23;65: I 6;81 :23
matters (1)
70:18
Max (20)
19:4;20: l 9;24:22;
25 :21;27:13;28: 10;
45 :23;46: 10;48: 19;
52:5,14;54:2;57: 11;
67:7;69:22,24;71 :11;
72:6,7,8
may (20)
14: 19;33:5;35: 13;
39:5;40: 14;4 I :2,24,
25;47: 11 ;52:I2;
53:5;65: 16;68: 18;
69: 19, 19,25;77:22;
78: I 8;90:6,6
maybe (8)
30: I 9;35:25;40:3;
42:1 l,11 ;69:14;73:8,
8
mean (43)
4: l 2;13:24;14: I;
15:6; 16:8;20: 12,25;
23 :4,23;26:24;27: 18;
29:5;30:5,6,13 ,24;
34:2, I 5;39:5;40:5,8;
52:6;53: 1;54: IO;
57:22;58:5;64:2,5;
67: 1;68: 10,19;69: 14;
71 :1,1 ;74:10;75 :12;
80:3,7;82:2,4;83 :23;
84:6;89:11
Meaning (7)
18:6;31 :23;57:I4;
71 :8;73:5;83:6;
88:15
means (8)
5:6;40:3,7;42:22;
55:12;74: 17;8 I :20;
82:10
meant (I)
25:3
measure (1)
24:17
measurement (1)
33:8
measurements (1)
33:2
measures (1)
15:3
memory (I)
43:11
mentioned (1)
15:17
mentor (1)
19:8
might (11)
26:23;27:2;28: 13;
35:4;54:23;63: 17;
(7) kinds - might
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
68:22;84: 1, 13, 15, 15
military (3)
36:22;40: 19;60: l I
mill (1)
16:5
Miller (2)
72:20,24
mind (2)
4:20;84:10
minute (2)
41:25;47:18
miss (1)
31:7
missed (1)
31:5
missing (1)
35:25
misspeak (3)
25:2,5;47:7
misspoke (1)
42:1 I
misunderstood (1)
42:1 I
models (1)
52:21
modification (2)
76:24;77: 19
modifications (3)
12:3;30: I 8;70:7
modified (4)
77: 13;82:21 ;83:7;
89:14
modffy (3)
31: 13;83:3;89:3
monitor (I)
8:8
MONROE (27)
4:6;35:8,16,20;
36: 1,5;39: 14;46:5,
19;47: 17,24;56:8;
65:24;66: 17 ,24;67: I,
3,12, 14,19;73:13,18;
90:9,12,15,23;91 :16
more (IS)
10:17;11:18,18;
27:9;28:21;42: 15;
43:21;46:4;54:17 ,20;
73:3,7,13;90:9;91 :16
MOS (1)
6:25
most (9)
10:4;27:3;34: 19;
59: 17, 18,18;60:10,
20;72:23
motions (1)
58:3
mouth (4)
18:21 ;37:21 ;53:1;
65:7
move (3)
5:2;58:3,6
moved (I)
36:13
military - parameters (8)

much (2)
32:20;81 :25
multiple (1)
45:1
must (I)
85:9
mutual (I)
56:10
myselr(2)
22: 15;9l:11
number (13)
21: 13, 16, 16;35:6;
36:3;39: I 2;65:21;
66: 1,2, 12, 15;67: I 7;
75:4
numbers (I)
40:9
N
name (4)
4:7; 17:7;20:8;
35:17
named (1)
10:11
Naples (1)
7:2
National (4)
12:11,17;14:11,12
nature (I)
30:20
necessarily (6)
30:14;34:5;43:5;
49:5;89: 16,25
necessary (1)
15:20
necessity (3)
88:3;89;8;90:4
need (9)
5:12,14;14:20;
19:3;21: 18;42: 15;
43: 10;47:6;57:18
negative (1)
30:23
new (16)
36:6;37:7;38:6,7;
40:23,24;8 I:4;87:25;
88:9,23;89:8,14, 16,
25;90:5,6
next (4)
20: l 6, 17;28:22;
84:15
NFA (3)
39:25;87:24;91:4
ninth (1)
8:20
nobody (2)
91:13,14
Nods (3)
17:19;63:6;64:1
non-machine (1)
84:16
notation (2)
40:1,7
notch (1)
53:25
notes (2)
29:6,8
notice (1)
37:9
43:20
offsite (1)
29:1
once (10)
13:21; I 5:3;16:23;
27:9;33: I I ;57:7;
59:11;86:15,19;
87:18
one (74)
0
4:18;8: 19; I 0:24;
12:9; 14:22;16: 14,18;
objects (1)
34:10
18:25; I 9:2;20:5;
25:2 I ;3I:7;35:16,20,
obligated (I)
23;38:5;41: 12;44:24,
43:8
obscure (I)
25;45:4,5,6,7, I 0,13;
21:15
46:4,15,20;47:1,2,l I,
observation (3)
12;48:8,11,14,18,23;
24:4,6;71 :17
49:3,3,6,8, l 0,14, 17;
50: 1,1,4,12,19, 19;
observations (S)
71 :6,8,9,19;75:8
51:3,7;54:11,12;
observed (3)
56:2;57: 10;61 :5,5,
24;62: 10;63:9;
25:12;70:22;71: 15
obviously (8)
64: I 6;66:4,23 ;68: l O;
13:11;16:17;
69: 16,17;70:3;73: 13;
74:9;80: 11,22;85:2 l,
27:23;3 l :5;48:25;
52:20;71 :2;89:22
24
one-component (1)
occnsio n ( 1)
22:10
60:22
ones (3)
occasions (2)
22:6;26:2
74:4;75: 1;85:25
occurrence (I)
one's (2)
62:10;67:1
82:3
one-time (1)
October (I)
37:10
80:8
off (9)
only (10)
23: 11;24: 14,15;
37:14;59:19,20;
60:22;61 ;23;77:25;
45:4,11;50:16;56:24;
89:5,20;90:6
67:4;74:25;78:24
offending (2)
on-the-job (2)
12:14,22
77:25;78: 11
offer (2)
open (19)
77:8,11
26: 13,20;59: 1,2,
office (41)
15, 16;60;4, 13, 18,25;
7:24;8:8;9 ;9;
61 :2,7,10;62: J ,5,16,
24;63;3;74:15
16:16; 19:23;20:15;
open-ended (1)
27:13,14;28:18;
30:12;3I : 13;32:9;
17:16
33:12;37: 12,13;38:2, operate (3)
57:23,24,25
2,4,5,8, I0,18,20;
operated (1)
41:24;42:I0, 18;
57:14
44:14;45: 16;46:2,18;
operates (I)
47:2,3;49;19,21 ;
56:21,23;6 l :9;72A,
33: 12
operating (4)
I5, I 6;90:24
Officer(?)
34:20;36:2 1;
63:23;73! 19
5 :24;6: 5;8: 15;9:2,
operations (I)
I 1;12:10;52:23
12: 16
officers (6)
8 ;1, 17,24;19:1;
opinion (1)
39: 10;64: 16
19:6
opinions (1)
office's (1)
91 :1
19:7
official (1)
oral (2)
1748
64:2,4
order (10)
19: 10;40: IO;
41:20,22;42:12, 12;
49:5,7;52:4;54:25
ordered (1)
39:20
orders (2)
36:20;37:5
organization (6)
15:12; 16:24;17:3,
8;64:7,22
original (5)
41:4;67:12,15;
81:6,12
originally (5)
35:21;36:13;
40: l I ;60:14;81:I6
originated (I)
51:12
others (2)
45:21;60:19
otherwise (1)
5:8
ought (1)
61:6
out (15)
7:6;20: 15;21: 12;
27: 13;30:1 ;38:7;
40:23;52:21;59:1 I;
60: 19;62: l 8;65:1 S;
71: 15;75:5;83:8
outside (1)
16:24
over (12)
4:24;26: I 0;27: 1O;
32:24;33:2, 13;48: 1;
57:12;72:13;82:11;
83:23;91:9
overruled (1)
81:20
overseeing (2)
18:18,23
Owen (1)
12:15
own (3)
11:10;59:13;70:7
p
page (3)
35: 19,25;40:21
pair (I)
60:22
panel (6)
43: 17,20;44:1,2,4,
6
paragraph (1)
40:21
parallel (1)
62:9
parameters (2)
11:16;22:17
'lin-l
-~cript H
RIF

paraphrasing (2)
24:15;34:8
part (8)
24:4;25:12;37: 13;
52: 18;53:7;57:2;
60:22;87:17
participate (2)
44:13;55:16
participated (7)
44:9, 12;50: 14;
72:2,6,22;82: 16
participating (1)
73:4
participation (I)
73:2
particular (12)
18: I 2;22:21 ;31 :8,
I 5;39:22;7 I :6;
72: 14;74:4;75: I, 10;
77:6;81:23
parties (3)
47:23;73:17;90:19
parts (10)
I 1:1;12:1,3;58:2;
79: 1;88:18;89:5,6,
12;90:5
past (2)
53:14,16
people (7)
8:12;17:4;20:6;
36:23;45: l 7;59:15;
72:1
perform (I)
70:24
performing (1)
70:22
perhaps (2)
31:14;70:6
period (4)
27: 10;61: 12,13;
63:11
permanently (1)
86:5
person (15)
15:1;16:12,15;
20: 16;21:7;22:1,8,
12;23: 15,18;24:13;
33:13;64:13;72: 14;
78:9
personally (1)
70:24
personnel (3)
12:16,17;17:5
pertain (4)
41:19,23;42:13,14
pertains (2)
42:5;43:2
physically (4)
20:24;32:2;39:8;
83:20
pickup (1)
21:18
piece (1)
85:2
pieces (1)
88:18
pin (20)
57:16,17,18;59:6,
8,8, 11,12,16,22;
61: 15, 19,2 l ;62:4,5,
13,23;63:8;85:6;
86:10
Pistol (4)
13:5,19;60:1 I;
74:15
pistols (2)
52:21;60:9
PK(3)
59:20;87:23;88: 15
PKM (1)
87:5
PK-style (2)
56:19,20
PK-type (2)
32:25;87:11
place (14)
5:20;15:19;27:1 l;
36:25;37: 17;38: 13,
24;4I:8;43:13;
48: 15;54: 1,6;79: 14,
16
placing (1)
77:23
plastic (2)
50:22;51:9
plate (10)
51:13,l5;52:3,8,8,
9,16;53:4;54:1,6
play (2)
15:10,16
please (11)
4:7;7:20;9:23;
10:21; 12:8; 13:1;
14:6;35:14;41 :25;
61:17;70:12
pliers (I)
60:22
pm (3)
90:17,19;91:18
point (5)
19:11;27:15;52:1;
55:11;84:13
pointed (I)
71:14
policies (2)
37:3;38:13
policy (3)
37:2;64:8;78:22
poorly (1)
14:18
portion (1)
75:21
portions (4)
31 :21 ;32: 18,20;
69:13
position (5)
Richard Vasquez
September to, 2009
5:22;6: 2; 7 :21,22;
62:1
positive (1)
40:4
possess (1)
71:23
possession (2)
21:23;74:6
possibility (4)
62: 18, l 9;65:8;
76:22
possible (S)
31: I 2;64:23;83:3;
87:5;88:2
posted (1)
41:13
practice (2)
78:22;79: 13
Precision (1)
10:23
precursor (1)
84:13
pre-manufactured (1)
12:1
preparing (1)
38:3
present (51)
31 :18,22;32: l,2,3,
5,7,12,15,19;33:7,16;
39:4,8;44:19,25;
45:5,6,12,17;46:7,9,
10, 16,20,22;47:1,2,4,
I 2,23;48:2,5,8, l 8,20;
49:4,9,20;50:5,6,7;
51:3,4,10;54:5,11;
58:14;70:21;73: 17;
90:19
presentation (3)
46:1,17;47:3
presented (1)
38:6
Presents (2)
42:1;66:9
president (I)
6:18
pressure (2)
13:7;53:18
pressures (1)
53:21
presumably (1)
38:17
pretty (3)
32:8,13;58:20
prevented (1)
53:19
previous (3)
36:20;37:2,3
primer (2)
59:14;61:24
principle (I)
59:13
print (1)
37:15
printed (1)
37:14
Prior (5)
6:10;40:15;43: 19;
60:7;62:3
private (1)
11:10
privately (4)
11:14;46:13;
47:15;56:5
probably (9)
9:19;30:22;33:11;
54: 16;60:2;69:25;
78:2;79:2;80: 17
procedure (8)
34:21,22;36: 19,21;
52:17,18,19,22
procedures (14)
18:5;34: 13, 16, 17;
35:10;36:7,I0;37:2,
3,7;39:2;63:23;64:4;
73:20
proceedings (3)
47:21;73:15;90: 17
process (8)
11:9;14:1;19: 17;
52: l 7;77:2;83:24;
84:1;85:16
produce (1)
28:21
product (6)
29:13;68:13;
69: 17;72:6;73:8;
84:14
production (1)
11:3
professional (1)
15: 11
professionalism (1)
39:9
program (8)
9:8,11,12,14;10:3;
11:19;13:3;39:21
prohibit (I)
56:25
prolonged (1)
13:14
promoted (1)
16:17
proof(l)
16:10
proper (1)
74:9
protrudes (1)
57:18
protruding (1)
59:22
provide (4)
6:15,16;7:24;
49:11
provided (3)
34:23;39:16;45:11
providing (I)
1749
49:15
public (5)
8:5,25;23: 12;
60: 17;62: 16
pull (1)
59:10
purpose (10)
37:25;48:21,25;
49: I 0,15;75:13,22,
24;82:23;83 :5
purposes (1)
74:6
purview (1)
91:9
push (1)
58:7
pushes (I)
59:20
put (13)
14:21;18:21;
37:20;40:22;50:23;
53: 1;60:25;64:15,21;
65:6;70: 12;89: 14,24
puts (2)
21 :16,21
putting (2)
53:4;66:23
puzzling (1)
68:7
PX (1)
87:13
Q
qualifies (I)
90:3
qualify (1)
88:19
Quantico (1)
10:23
quarter (1)
16:24
quarterly (1)
16:19
quick (I)
47:13
quite (1)
68:9
R
range (S)
16:17, 19,20;48: 12;
50:13
ranges (1)
50:4
rank (2)
7:10,13
ranking (1)
73:6
rather (1)
5:2
real (1)
(9) paraphrasing - real
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
32:24
reality (2)
42:20;64:21
realize (1)
68:22
really (3)
23:6;26:21;51 :20
rear (6)
50:23;51:5,13;
53:4;58:7;61 :25
reason (2)
47: 1;65:3
recall (20)
26:5,8,25;27:5,7;
34:4;44:22;54: 13;
55:3,24;63:25;67:9;
69:21 ;73:21,22,25;
76:24;80:8,20;84:7
recalled (I)
86:12
recalls (1)
86:9
receive (I)
22:6
received (9)
12:13,18;19:11,18;
20:2, I 0;21 :20;48: IO;
68:8
receiver (33)
24:22;25:3,4;
26: 12;55:22;56:20,
25;57: I 3;75:21 ;
76: I;77: 13,14;78: I,
5,6, I 2,25;82:24;
83: 14,15;84:20,23,
25;85:4,9, 14;86: 10,
16,20,20,25;87:5;
88:20
receivers (2)
11: 1, 15
receives (1)
19:22
recess (3)
47:20;73:14;90:16
reclassification (1)
78:14
reclassified ( 4)
60:24;79:25;8 I:8;
83:15
recognize (3)
67:22,24;68:4
recoil (2)
53:18,21
recollect (2)
23:25;26:17
recollecting (I)
33:20
recollection (1)
79:15
recruiter (1)
7:5
re-examined (1)
82:6
reality - seeking (10)

reference (6)
8:22;65:25;66:14;
73:20,22,23
referring (5)
29:14;35:5,ll;
45:13;66:19
refers (1)
44:4
refresh (1)
43:11
regard (1)
8:9
regardless (3)
14:21,24;15:9
Regiment (1)
11:23
register (2)
77:9;85:7
registered (7)
24: 17;74;20,20;
76:4;77:9;78:6;
87:14
regulated (1)
14:12
regulates (1)
12:12
regulation (1)
26:1
regulations (1)
12:19
rehabllltation (1)
86:25
reinvestigated (1)
82:4
related (1)
9:18
release (1)
57:19
remained (1)
57:4
remanufactured (1)
86:18
remark (1)
36:1
re-marked (I)
36:4
remember (9)
33:22;36:15;
44:22;54:24;74:2;
80:9, 10;81:25;87:17
remembered (1)
34:7
remotely (1)
15:20
Removal (I)
39:25
removed (3)
57:5,7;78: 15
removes (1)
78;11
reopening (1)
81 :23
repairman (1)
7:1
repeat(l)
56:6;61 :17
repetitive (I)
30:18
rephrase (3)
17:21;51 :25;72:5
replaced (1)
89:12
report (34)
25:21;28:9, 12, 14,
16,17;29:1,2,4,7,12,
14, 16, 19,22,25 ;30:3,
6,7,13, 15;31 :9;
50:21;55: I 9;64:14;
65: I 9,25;66:7,20;
69:22;90:25;91:2,7'
10
reporter ( 1)
4:21
reports (8)
20:6;29: I 0,20;
66:1 ;67:4,7,8;91 :5
representative (1)
11 :21
request (7)
22:16,24;23:8;
24:7, I 4;34:24;76:22
requests (1)
63:20
required (1)
16:20
requires (1)
14:8
requiring (1)
78:21
response (1)
34:24
responses (2)
63:19;76:21
responsibility (5)
9:8;23:11,12,14;
44:16
responsible (I)
16:13
rest (1)
86:20
resubmitted (I)
81 :3
result (1)
76:18
resumed (3)
47:22;73: 16;90: 18
retired (3)
7:15,16;1 l:l I
returned (1)
77:18
returning (1)
76:23
review (13)
27:24;37:12,13;
38:2,2,4,5,9, I 0, 12,
20;44:17;91:2
reviewed (8)
28:9;30: 12;67:4,
10;70:4;72:8;73:7;
81:7
reviewing (3)
73:3;90:24;9 I :6
Reviews (4)
65:23;66:21;
67:23;74:7
reword (1)
28:4
RICHARD (2)
4:2,8
rlfle(18)
11:3,5;13:4;22:25;
23:2,8;24:18, 19,22,
23,23;25:8;59:9;
64:25;65: 13, 17;
77:10,11
rlOes (2)
11:12,13
right (42)
5:12;10: 13,16;
18: 14;19:12;20:6;
24:22;25:15;27:2, 16;
28:22,22;31: 10,16;
33:6,8;37:24;42:5;
45: l 7;48:23;49:8;
50: 24;53: 2,22;55 :6;
58: 13;59:3;63:5;
65:20;66:2, I 2;72:4;
74:6, 13,22;76:16, 19;
77:3,7;88:13;89:22;
90:15
role (3)
90:23;91:1,6
Ronnie (1)
11 :8
rotating (1)
59:10
rough (1)
25:23
round (6)
57:20;59: 12,21,21;
61:22,23
RPD (1)
80:19
RPD-based (2)
80:12,16
Ruger (1)
10:5
rule (4)
61 :7;62:12;63:2,7
ruling (2)
73:25;74: 10
rulings (5)
60:8;61: 1;62:3;
73:21,22
Running (1)
58:2
1750
safe (4)
14:7,14;15:5,7
safety (1)
17:22
sake (1)
85:23
sale (1)
33:4
sales (1)
60:15
same (6)
9:5;43: 12;71: 17;
82:22;85:8;87:4
sample (1)
22:13
samples (3)
9: 13;14:25;51: 19
SAP (1)
60:10
sat (2)
27:25;28:10
Savage (15)
19:12;29:14;30:2;
65:11;67:13,16,22;
68:2,8;69: 1,6, 11;
79:22,23;80:22
saw (2)
9:9;86:8
saying (29)
9: 15;18:22;3l:12,
15;32: 12;36:24;
38:23;41:7,16;42:7;
43:3;47:10;49: 14;
52:14;53:2;54: 17;
58:21;65:7;71:14;
72:21 ;78:18;79:12;
80:21;86:15,24;
87:21 ;88:2,3;89:20
schedule (1)
16:23
school (1)
9:24
schools (3)
10:2,4,7
scratch (1)
87:4
Second (7)
11 :23;49:3,6;54:9,
11,18;56:2
Secretary (1)
6:17
section (2)
42:2;43:1
secure (2)
21:6,8
Security (9)
6:11,13,14,16,17;
7: 1;13:12, 14; 17:5
seeing (I)
88:25
seek (1)
22:23
seeking (1)
'lin-l
-~t
I ip l I'
RIF

71 :16
seem (2)
33:5;84:3
seems (2)
35:24;68:9
seer (S)
84:23;85:1,6,9,11
sell (2)
60: 16;86: 11
selling (1)
62:16
semi (1)
88:15
semiautomatic (28)
32:5;33:3;56: 19,
20,22,24;57:4;60:11,
18;6 l :2,8, l l ;62:5;
76:6,7;77:25;78:5,
I 2;84:2,24;85:3, 13;
86:12;87:10,11,16,
18,23
semiautomatlcally (1)
62:23
semi-fixed (5)
59:6,7;61 :15,19;
62:4
send (S)
15:10;22:2,5;
78:10,19
sends (S)
22: 1;23:15, 18;
24: 14;78: 13
sent (8)
22:8;67:13;69: 11;
77:23;78:7;79:21,23;
80:23
separate (1)
29:5
separated (1)
7:14
Sergeant (3)
7:12,15;11:21
served (1)
63:20
Service (4)
6:11,13,14;13:12
set (2)
28: 18,18
sets (1)
83:6
severa1(2)
26:2;41:23
sheet (2)
21:12,14
Sherifrs (4)
45: 16;47:2;48: 12;
50:13
sheriffs' (1)
50:4
shield (1)
15:21
shipped (I)
19:14
'lin-l -"rriplC!
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
shoot (17)
13:8;14:21;15:15;
49:25;52:15;55:10,
23;56:1,11 ;60:5,23;
61: 16,20,24;78: I;
79:1;88:20
shooting (2)
17:1;87: 19
shoots (3)
76: l 8;78:4;88:6
shop (1)
83:9
short (6)
22:25;23 :1,8;
24:17;77:10;90:1 I
shotguns (1)
52:21
shoulder (3)
24:20;25:9, 12
show (3)
23:24;35 :5;49:22
showing (3)
35:9;39:15;67:20
sides (1)
45:17
sign (2)
37: 15;38:25
signature (4)
30: 1;35:15, 19,24
signed (7)
37:10,14;38:9,19;
63 :21;69: 11;72:10
signing (2)
37:17,25
similar (1)
87:6
similarities (I)
32:25
simple (2)
64:12;65:3
single (4)
13:3,7;42:17;
64:10
situation (2)
81 :7;84:9
Sixth (1)
I 1;23
size (1)
13:9
sizes (1)
74 :18
Smith (1)
10:5
sniper (3)
11 :3,5;13:10
snipers (2)
11:7;13:4
Snyder (6)
20:9,10, 18,23;
21:2,5
somebody (3)
52:1;63:17;78:8
somehow (2)
89:13,14
someone (4)
18:9; 19:25;53:24;
72:3
somewhat (4)
15:6; 19: 10;30: 18;
57:16
somewhere (1)
48:15
soon (2)
61:21,23
SOP (5)
38:23,24;64:12,15,
21
SOPs (1)
64:22
SOP's(2)
36:23;37:14
sorry (3)
29:25;46:20;84:7
sort (I)
50:23
sound (2)
17:22;38:1
sounded (2)
32:13,14
sounds (2)
18:22;32:8
South (1)
7:8
southwest (I)
7:7
space (4)
15:3;24: 1, 1;35:24
speaking (1)
77:17
special (7)
6: 14;8:3; 10:25,25;
13:13,19,21
specific ( 10)
I 3:6;33:22,24,25;
34: l ,2,5;53:5;84:6,8
specifically (2)
27:5;80:9
specifics (2)
90:7,8
spectrum (2)
84:5,8
speculate (1)
49:7
speed (I)
17:2
Spencer (20)
22:15;37:10, I 2,15;
38:19;44:14, 19,21;
50:8;68:3, 17,20;
69:1,6,10,11;70:6;
72:3,10;91:12
Spencer's (S)
30: l ;35: l 7;44: 15;
72:12;73:2
spend (1)
83:9
sporting (1)
14:10
spring (1)
57:19
squeeze (1)
62:1
staff (2)
11:21;72:17
stage (2)
28: 14;83:25
standard (3)
34:20;36: 19,21
standardized (2)
34:13,15
start (7)
38:7;72:13;83:23;
87:3;88:17, I 8;89:4
started (2)
88:12,22
state (6)
4:7;6:15,17,20;
7:3;71:3
States (1)
62:15
status (1)
6:19
statute (1)
26:2
step (1)
18:25
stepping (1)
53:25
steps (1)
19:9
stick (1)
23:15
sticking (1)
59:11
still (3)
82:22;83:4, to
stock (4)
l 1:17;25:4,7,13
storage (1)
21:22
stress (1)
13:6
stretch (1)
5:14
strictly (1)
91:3
strikes (2)
83:25;84:12
strip (2)
59:19;61:23
stripping (1)
33:7
strips (1)
59:20
student (1)
9:25
studies (1)
10:16
studying (1)
1751
10:15
subjective (1)
15:7
subjectiveness (2)
15:9,16
subjects (1)
26:18
submachine (1)
60:9
submit (1)
23:19
submits (1)
23:13
submitted (8)
14:24,25;22: 13;
23:7;56:22;61 :5;
62: 10;80:21
subsequently (3)
47:22;73:16;90: 18
substance (4)
26:5;49:23;91 :7,
10
substantive (4)
30:20,24;31 :2;
73:9
successful (1)
81:22
summarize (1)
52:25
superior (1)
73:6
supervise (3)
7:24;8:11;19:1
supervisor (4)
7:23;18:23;19:8;
50:11
supervisor's (1)
82:8
supposed {I)
22:9
sure (15)
5: I ;8:7;25:1;
26:22;33:2 I ;41 :6;
46:25;47:9;52:20;
61: 18;62:25;68:8;
69:20;87:20;90: 12
suspected (3)
58:21,25;59:2
sworn (1)
4:3
syntactical (1)
30:20
system (1)
20:13
T
talked (3)
10:8;36:23;66:5
talking (8)
4:24;9:4;26: 14;
36:8;52:8;72: 14;
74:25;78:8
(11) seem - talking
RIF
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
talks (2)
8:16;52:19
tape (3)
50:22;51 :9;53:6
taught (1)
12:21
Team (2)
13:5,5
tech (I)
19:20
technical (17)
7:25;8:3,4; 10:2;
25:22;26:10,11,14,
l 8;28:2,4,6;3 l :4;
40: 18,20;91 :7,9
technician (3)
19:22;20: 1,5
technicians (1)
8:22
Technology (7)
6:1;12:23;15:23;
I 8:7;22:3;65:4,9
tells (1)
58:i8
tension (I)
57:19
tentative (I)
55:13
term (4)
9:1;14:17;58:18;
59:7
terminology (I)
29:23
terms (3)
8:23;18:3;19:18
test (40)
13: 14;14:2,8,8,22;
15: 12,22; 16:2,6,9;
I 8:6,8;32:7;44:24,
25;45:1,7,15,19;
46:22;47:4;48:2,7,9,
22;50:17,21;51: 1,7,
17;52: 10, 17 ,19,22;
53:8;54:3,14,15,23;
57:23
tested (2)
13:5,8
testified (3)
4:4;44: 11 ;56:9
testify (3)
8:2;64: 17;70:19
testimony (1)
90:22
testing (13)
12:24;13:22,25;
14:1;18:14,17;31: 19,
22,23,24;34:13, 15;
44:20
tests (4)
13:6,7;16:25;
70:22
that'll (2)
20:3;52:12
talks - weren't (12)

theory (1)
68:11
Thereupon (13)
35:6;36:3;39: 12;
46: 13;47: 15,20;56:4;
65:21;66:15;67:17;
73:14;90:16;91: 17
third (3)
49:6;63; l 9;76:22
though (4)
26:16;32:17;
35:24;42:9
thought (3)
61:6;62:11 ;71 ;9
Three (10)
4:14,16;7:3,6;
45: l 9;46:25;47:9;
48:1,2,5
throw (1)
40:23
ties (4)
50:22;51 ;9;52; 12;
53:6
time-consuming (1)
33:5
times (5)
52:12,13;77:23 ;
78:3;82: 10
title (1)
19:21
Tobacco (1)
5:20
Todd (3)
72:19,23,24
together (1)
14:18
told (2)
33:23;77:24
took (9)
11: 1;21:23;27:11:
47:25;48: 14;82:7;
87: 13;89: 11,20
tool (2)
28:22;53:7
tools (1)
10:25
top (1)
40:2
total (1)
8:1
totally (1)
23:20
tour (1)
43:13
tours (1)
10:24
training (6)
7:25,25;12: 13, 14,
18,22
transcribe (I)
4:25
transfer (1)
74:6
transferable (2)
74:12,21
transferred (1)
20:24
treated (I)
74:5
treatment (I)
74:9
trials (1)
8:2
tried (2)
79: 10;86: 11
trigger (4)
58: 12;59: 10;62:2;
88:7
trip (1)
60:23
true (2)
57:17;89:19
trunnion (3)
50:23;51: 13,22
truth (1)
64:19
try (8)
4:24;9: 1; 19:9;
28:4;52:2,25;63: 1;
85:13
trying (8)
10: I; 17: 13;27:22;
37:20;45:22;53: IO;
55:4;69:15
turn (1)
83:9
turnbuckle (3)
54:1,3,6
two (15)
7:5;10:17;29:20;
56:2;65:25;67:8,10;
68: 15;72:17;73:21;
76:4;84: 17;85: 17;
87:25;88:3
type (11)
11:16,17;17:14;
29:2,9;32:4,6;59:9;
61:2;80:19;87:6
typed (1)
28:25
typing (1)
29:4
u
uncommon (I)
33:12
Under (12)
4:11;12:11;24:19;
30: I ;54:8;57: 19;
74: I 0;79:6,7;80:23;
83:16;91:4
undergoing (1)
37:1 I
understood (2)
12:18;33:6
unfinished (1)
84:14
United (1)
62:15
Unless (1)
86:18
unmade (1)
86:17
Unsigned (1)
35:22
unwritten (1)
37:4
up (28)
10:1;16:10; 17:1;
19:9;2 l: l 7;23:20;
25: 10;28: l 8, l 9;29:4,
9;31:9;32:13;40: I;
45:24,25;52:2, 14;
53:3,5,24,25;60:7;
67:7;71:3;78:17;
81:7;86:10
upper (3)
65: l 8;75:21 ;76:8
use (10)
9:1;14:10,17;
16:16;34:14;52: 12,
13,I 6;54:23;84: 17
used (12)
8:23;13:5;18:4,5,
10;29: I 6;34:6, 19;
51 :4,18;58:17;59:7
using (3)
14:9;53:25;87:4
utilize (1)
51 :16
utilized (1)
53:15
v
variance (1)
85:7
variant (9)
32:6;33:3;56:20,
21,22,24;57:4;60: 18;
84:24
variants (1)
87:10
variety (7)
6:25;7:9;13:15;
52:21;54:22;65:18;
71: 1
VASQUEZ (3)
4:2,8;90:22
venture (1)
65:2
verbal (7)
36:19;63:22;64:2,
10,11,12,22
verllication (1)
63:21
version (14)
35:22;36:6,18,25;
37: l,9,15;40:14,23,
25;41:5,10,13;43: 12
vice (2)
14:21;15:19
video (2)
45:11;49:15
videoed (I)
49:9
videotape (1)
48:9
view (1)
54:16
Virginia (4)
5:21 ;10:23;36:14;
50:20
VISCOMI (13)
35:4,13,18,23;
47:16;50:9;56:5;
66:22,25;90: 11, l 3,
21;91:15
visiting (1)
6:17
visual (9)
14:16;15:2,4;24:4,
6;70:25;7I:I,12, 13
w
wait (1)
4:22
walk (1)
54:15
walked (1)
24:1
wants (2)
8:6;25:22
War (1)
11:6
way (12)
18:4;25:25;28: 18,
24;33: I 1;34:25;
37:22;53: 10;55:1;
65:8;82:21;83:1
way-beyond (1)
23:17
ways (1)
65:18
weapon (7)
14:12;39:25;
51: 18;52:24;57:6;
75:17;76:12
weapons (6)
7: I ,7,8;10:23;
13:2;51:17
weeks (1)
20:16
welded (4)
14: 18;75:21;86:6,
10
welder (1)
16:5
weren't (1)
33:7
1752
RIF

Wesson (1)
10:5
West (3)
5:21;36: 14;50:20
whatever's (1)
16:20
what's (6)
5:22;20:8;35:9;
39: l 5;67:20;68:7
White(2)
13:6;15:10
whole (2)
13:2;64:19
who's (3)
16: 12;20: 15;78:9
whose (1)
51:20
wide (3)
7:9;52:20;54:22
within (1)
82:11
Without (10)
33:20;34: I ;73:9;
74: 12,21 ;77:18,23;
78:21 ;79:22;88:25
withstand (1)
53:21
WITNESS (6)
35:2;45:23;46:3,
I 5;56:6;65:23
wondering (2)
68: I 0;90:25
word (3)
27:22;37: 18;68: 12
worded (3)
25:25;26:1;53:I0
wording (2)
69:13;87:2
wordings (1)
33:24
words (7)
18:21;34:1,5,6;
37:20;53:1;65:6
work (10)
8:8;13:21;15:1;
18:24;2 I :21 ;24:1,1;
28: 15,21,25
workbench (1)
28:23
worked (3)
6:10;11:8;57:2
working (2)
21:9;29:3
works (1)
88:6
world-renowned (1)
15: 11
write (7)
29: I ;30:6;40:20;
42:22;43:2;64:9, 14
writes (I)
21:12
writing (4)
Richard Vasquez
September 10, 2009
25:20,22;28: 14;
55:19
written (24)
28: 17;29: 10,23;
30:7,13;34: l 7;36:18,
25;37:1;40:12,I5,16;
41:4;42:16,21;52:18,
l 9;64:8;67:8,9;
68:16;69:3,7,IO
wrong (1)
85:22
wrote (14)
16: 16;28: 16;
36: 10,12,13,23,24;
37:4,6;65:19;66: I;
67:6;68:23;73:20
y
year (2)
21:20;40:19
years (3)
7:3,6;10:2
yesterday (2)
39:17;63:21
young (1)
28:19
z
zip (I)
52: 12
1753
-
(13) Wesson - zip
RIF
Nery Ciose...
Page I of 3
[View Thread] [Post ResP-onse] [Return to Index] [Read Prev Msg ] [Read Next Msg ]
Subguns.com NFA Firearms Discussion Board
Very Close...
Posted By: Historic Arms LLC
Date: 4/10/09 09:18
/11 Respo11se To: IlJm.er was submitted to A TF as an SBR. From p.ics.. (Old Timer)
However,
At the time the upper was designed 7.64x54R was vastly cheaper than 45acp and even cheaper than 9mm.
So When designed and built it was indeed meant to shoot cheaper ammo.
Also, the A TF testing procedure was invalid. Why? If you take a OEM MAC upper and apply the same
test, it would fire a projectile .... " A Firearm 11 The ATF does not consider them a Firearm [by there own
documents they applied a conversion device, or made a defacto ad-hoc receiver]
A TF routinely acts in violation of 27 CFR 4 78.11 Definition of a fireann frame or receiver. You see all
AR- J5 and MAC upper are actually "The" Frame or Receiver. Who knows why in J968 when the
definition was made law the A TF didn't get with it .... now we have a mess. The lowers are still
machineguns under the NF A as they are conversion devices.
l didn't seek ATF "approval" on the project. The project was built with close counsultation with John
Spencer, the new FTB Chief. It was registered as a sh011 barreled rifle to address A TF concerns of not
wanting "prohibited persons" being able to possess them or build them [Bill Flemming's name did come
up],Prior to ever submitting to ATF at Mr. Spencer's request.
Por what its worth, the ATF assigned the project to the Max Kingery, whom four month previous I had
testified against in US v. Olofson. Now there are some of you who may remember at the time of Ernie
Wrenn 1s trial, my company actually had "approval" of a 7.62x39 belt fed MAC upper, near identical to
Wrenn's. I was at his trial, less than four months after his trial ATF "reconsidered" my upper to be an MG,
therefor illegal. Do you see a pattern???
The "defendant property" was arrested and is indeed going to get a trial. In my Federal district, it will get a
Jury trial. The testing voodoo at ATF must be run to ground in Federal Court. At least this way no person
is in danger of going to prison doing it.
Len Savage
Messages In This Thread

Wb-9 j~_ thc g!!:\'....}Yh_osc "qppers" were declared MG's? -- Ted in Tallahassee -- 419109 20:35
o Cas:.e_t_o_e_lboi:ate_? -- hkg3k -- 419109 23:36
Y_efu Ldo.~, -- Historic Arms LLC -- 4110109 09:22
o Ah_~_Ernie_W.i:.en._My favorite nerson today . -- Ted in Tallahassee -- 419109 23:07
Don't think that was Ernie Wren. -- T.C. -- 419109 23:32
Len Say~ge has done a trcm amt for gun dght~ -- SAT -- 4/10/09 08:09
Well, now, credit where credit is due! As ..... -- Old Timer -- 4/10/09 10:29
Juiling_peonlc ovcr_$200 ts '~lp{pJ'7 -- Andrew A. -- 4/ 10/09 12:55
1757
http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.c gi ?read=694083
RIF
411 0/2009
Page 2 of3
Very C)ose...
No wo_rt_h responding to. - NTXJ' -- Old Timer -- 4/10/09 14:11

Unborn machine gunJndustry? new since 68 '! -- whiskerz -- 4110109 11 :44
Well, there was hardl)'....P.IlY collcctor/sho_Qt~_r U-! -- Old Timer -- 4/10/09
12:53
Chauchat, MP18. Lewi~ Maxim_, c_t_c -- Andrew A. -- 4/10/09 13:08
The "industry" that existed outside the large... -- Old Timer
-- 4/10/09 14:19
What are you talking aboutJ?'l -- Historic Arms LLC -- 4/10/09 11 :26
I~ll_rcp_eat myself for your benefit then. Although -- Old Timer -- 4/10109
14:05
l\19_.fil:jntcrcsting_post of the thread -- The Unibanger -- 4110109 10:52
so we th!lnk ATF? I don't think so ... -- raffica -- 4/10/09 12:23
?_ -- The Unibanger -- 4110109 13: 10
If no.t ,_l!lJJYJ>e it was Len Savage? -- Ted in Tallahassee -- 4/10/09 00:09
ln_c_Qt:i_:~c;_t.t!! -- Historic Arms LLC -- 4/10/09 09:24
Scars a_r~ a dif(ereu1kcttlc of fish,JMO. -- hkg3k -- 419109 23:41
Arc you sure. Think about -- SAT -- 4/10/09 08: 17
I don~doul>.t fos:_a s~co_1_1_<1 fhey would tor ii. -- T.C. -- 4/10/09 04:24
o L~n's_upp~r_w~s ar.rcstcd rec~ntly -- whiskerz -- 419109 22: 13
llnncr was subm.ittcd to ATF s an SBR. From nics ... -- Old Timer -- 419109 22:50
Very Close... -- Historic Arms LLC -- 4110109 09: 18
Th!!_t_i_sj!_plus th es couple of thing~. -- whiskerz -- 4/10/09 07:06
Unn_cr vs lower is pretty flip flop an)'.ID}y -- willbird -- 4/10/09 08:13
6-Qyl Thos_c_gyys sure_go to some lenghts -- BrianF -- 4110109 00:16
Give t~TF eight IJ@..rs in their fully -- Dragon -- 4110109 01 :09
l_remcmbcr sc_cj:o.g.tlu~ pictures and thinking -- Matt Min Ohio -- 419109 22:54
o Ernest Wnm -- David Hineline -- 419109 20:47
I have NQT_gonc awa~. -- Ernie Wrenn -- 4110109 13:14
ll~r_c~~'l.P-ic of_E.n 1ic's RPD-ba~e!l_Mac upper -- tony k -- 419109 23:03
Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
jRe: Very Close ...
Message:
1758
httn //www .subeuns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read~694083
RIF
4/ 10/2009
Very dose...
Page 3 of3
...
..:.I
If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL: lhttp://

Optional Link Title:
If you'd like to include an image (picture) with your message,
please provide the URL address of the image file:
Optional Image URL: !http://

Preview Message
Post Message
[View Thread) [Post Response 1[Return to Index] [Read Prev Msg ] [Read
Ne~t.1'1....9]
Subguns.com NFA Firearms Discussion Board is maintained by Administrator with WebBBS 5.11.
All contributions become the property of subguns.com and are copyright \C by Tom Bowers as of the time of posting. No content may be
reposted or published without written consent of Tom Bowers.
Disclaimer: The subguns.com discussion boards are open to the public, its users may express their opinion or speculate, and as such, posted
information cannot be assumed to always be factual. The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this page are those of the author or
organization and not necessarily those ofsubguns.com or anyone affiliated with subguns.com in an official capacity. The content of this page
has not been reviewed or approved by subguns.com, and the author or organization is solely responsible for its content.
IS\
1759
http:l/www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=694083
RIF
4/10/2009
Clarification of Machinegun Definition

As defined in 26 United States Code, Chapter 53, section 5845(b)
Machinegun. The term 'machinegun' means 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, any
part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination
machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person.
Clarification:
As defined in 26 United States Code, Chapter 53, section 5845(b)
Machinegun. The term 'machinegun, means:
any weapon which shoots;
If you have a weapon that when loaded and you pull the trigger it
shoots continuously with one conscious pull of the trigger, it is a
machinegun capable of automatic fire. We use this portion to classify
any weapon that shoots automatically for whatever reason. If the
weapon was originally designed as a semiautomatic weapon and was
converted to shoot automatically by some means such as a conversion
device, or modifications to the parts of the firearm, then it would fit
this portion of the definition
is desie;ned to shoot;
It is made as a machinegun from the factory or modified into a
machinegun configuration with design features that allow it to shoot
automatically. An RPD or M249 was designed by the manufacturer
to have the capability of shooting automatically. These types of
weapons have design features different from semiautomatic variants.
These design features classify the receivers as a machinegun receiver
1760
RIF
or can be readily restored to shoot;

This applies to weapons that previously shot automatically because of
design features that allowed the weapon to shoot automatically, but in
their current condition do no shoot automatically. We have applied
this portion of the definition to weapons that were designed as a
machinegun but for some reason do not fire automatically.
It has also been applied to machinegun receivers that had been
severed in sections by the owner with the intent of being destroyed
and then ultimately removed from the classification of machinegun.
The case of the "TRW"M14 from the 6th district is one of these cases.
The M14 machinegun receivers in this case were fabricated from Ml4
machineguns that had been severed in two sections and sold as scrap
metal. The purchaser welded the receivers back together and sold
them as ATF approved semiautomatic weapons.
I was able to "restore" these weapons to fire automatically by 2
different methods. On one sample I welded an unmodified severed
Ml4 receiver back together and then test fired it. On a different
sample that was welded back together and the machinegun design
features welded over so they would not function; I restored the design
features in approximately 45 minutes (under scrutiny of the defendant
and defense counsel) then shot it automatically.
The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
A firearm receiver with the design features of a machinegun is a
machinegun all by itself. Ifl strip an AK.47 and throw away all of the
parts the receiver has the design features to accept an automatic sear,
which is the key component to allow automatic fire, so the receiver is
classified as a machinegun.
Taking a semiautomatic variant receiver without these features and
modifying the receiver into the same configuration, as an AK47
would change the classification of the semiautomatic receiver to a
1761
RIF
If a machinegun receiver was not properly destroyed it would still be a

machinegun receiver. Cutting the receiver in non-critical areas then
patching it back together by weld and adding parts that do not allow it
to shoot automatically does not remove it from the machinegun
classification.
Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination

of parts desie;ned and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a
machinee;un,
Commonly called conversion devices. These are generally a
modified part of a semiautomatic weapon or a fabricated part that
causes the weapon to function as a machinegun. Since the only
purpose of these parts is to make a semiautomatic weapon shoot
automatically they are classified as machineguns.
There are many conversion devices for a wide variety of weapons.
The trigger mechanism in this SKS was modified in a manner as to
allow the host semiautomatic SKS fire automatically. As received the
host SKS did not have a gas piston so it would not cycle as designed.
A gas piston was installed to allow the semiautomatic SKS to operate
as designed; as a gas operated semiautomatic firearm. What
converted the SKS to shoot automatically was the modified trigger
mechanism.
After installing a gas piston in the SKS and conducting a test fire we
demonstrated that the trigger mechanism converted the SKS to shoot
automatically. To substantiate our classification of the trigger
mechanism as a conversion device, the trigger mechanism was
installed in a sample SKS, belonging to ATF, and it also fired
automatically. Both of these tests demonstrated that the trigger
mechanism was "a part designed and intended for converting a
weapon into a machinegun".
These types of devices are not new and became a concern for Law
Enforcement. They were addressed in an ATF Ruling (ATF Ruling
81-4) and the statute was amended adding this portion of the
definition in 1986. Parts to convert semiautomatic weapons into
machineguns were recently addressed again in another ruling (ATF
Ruling 2006-2), which further clarified the definition.
1762
RIF
and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be

assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a
person;
There are circumstances in which an individual is in possession of
everything it takes to fabricate a machinegun. Parts or plans for a
machinegun are not prohibited. But, if a person were in possession of
a semiautomatic AK type weapon, a template of where to drill the
hole to convert the semiautomatic weapon into a machinegun, the
drill bits and fixtures to ensure the holes were drilled to the proper
dimension and location, and the machinegun parts to assemble the
machinegun then the person could be charged under this definition.
This is not to be construed that a gunsmith who has all of the
necessary tools and equipment in his shop, and knowledge, in his shop
to make conversion devices is in violation of this statute.
1763
RIF
Gun Rights Examiner: Arrested development in Georgia gun case
Page 1of8
Arrested development in Georgia gun case

January 28 8 22 AM
by David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner
27 comments
Next
An "Authorized Law Enforcement Officer'' has been ordered by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, to make an
arrest in a machine gun case.
Guess who they're arresting?
Wrong. Not "who."
"What."
Seriously.
Here's how the warrant reads:

Plaintiff,
vs.
ONE HISTORIC ARMS MODEL s4RCCS

"7 .62X54R CALJBER CONVERSION
SYSTEM" ~IACHINE GUN, SERIAL NO. V1,:
Defendant.
~t's similar to a modern version of a deodand, although in th is case, no one's o x
cart has run over anyone. Still, a piece of property has offended our overlords,
and for that, it must pay!
This despite the fact that the owner of said "machine gun ,~ Historic Firearms,
LLC President Len Savage, tried doing everything by the book in submitting a
conversion part to ATF:
The dispute i.-; 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 of25 cents or more...
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 1epair part a gun, it was a machine gun, and
he had only hours to "register" it p1operly.
How'd they come to that conclusion?
[A]ll it took wa.'> some metal, a length of cltain,

some duct tape and some plastic wire ties/or the
federal inspectors to make /tis gun part operate
in that/ash ion~ he said he was told.
Like this:
1773
RIF
htto://www.examiner.com/x-14l7-Gun-Rights-Examiner- v2009m1 d28-Arrested-develonment-in-Georni ...
113012009
Page 2 of8
With that criteria, given enough added parts that are not part of the submitted
design, I know a lot of people who could turn a banana into machine gun.
Why are they doing this, especially since many other caliber conversion uppers
exist that are not so classified? Will this area be revisited? Or is this payback for
Savage testifying on behalf of David Olofson and in other cases?
Here's Savage's statement on this latest development:
I just got of the phone with Dahil Goss, Assistant

United States Att01-neyfrom Northern District
ofGeorgia. She has injonned me that a
complaint against thefireaMn I submitted to
ATF's Firearms Technology Branch, who then
then seized, has been.filed.
I asked if a summons with attached complaint
had been mailed or served upon me. She
informed me that no infact no attempt to se1'Ve
me has been made. The arrest warrant has been
issuedfor the firearm, she e.~lained that it
would take ATF 1-2 weeks to proceed with ''legal
fiction" [her term, not mine] and serve the
m-rest warrant on the firearm. She thought the
arrest would occm in Martinsburg West
Vfrginia at FTB, I was under the understanding
that the.firearm wa.~ in tlteATFAtlanta office. I
can only hope thefi1em-m does not evade arrest
iffound in one place when going to at-rest it in
another?
I am told a copy of tlte complaint is available
with the court clerk, Dahil Goss offered to send
me a copy of the complaint, ifl promised not to
file anything on the case until I am served.
I will ofcou1seforward it when I receive it, your
ta.i= dollars at work...
Len has since sent both the complaint and the warrant to me, and I present
download links to them below.
This is an unfolding issue (I've been reporting on it for six months), and I'll
certainly return to it as things develop, as, I suspect, will a very few others who
specialize in liberty~oriented journalism. It's a pity that you probably won't hear a
word of this from most "mainstream" news organizations-you know. the
"authorized journalist" government watchdogs we so rely on ...
I'm sure they'll be right on top of ATF happenings under the hopeful changes of
an Obama adminstration ...
In the mean time, I'm going to give you some .pdf documents and some
background information so you can more fully understand and better follow the
issues at play here:
ATF correspondence (detailed): Down oad
1774
htto://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rhlhts-F.xaminer- v?OOC)m 1cl7R-ArrP~tPil-ilPvPlnnmPnt-in-r.Pnroi
RIF
1 /~() /'J ()()Q
Page 3 of8
The arrest warrant: Download

The complaint: Download
WorldNetDaily:"Gunmaker lo feds Make my day'"
WorldNetDai/y: "Gunmaker to feds: Give me my firearm!"
Check out the latest from other Gun Rights Examiners:

Charlott Gun Rights Examiner: 'Gun trafficking' bill for NC?
Part 3: Traced guns are not 'crime guns'

Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Gun safety training
should be a mandatory part of school curriculum
Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Take me shooting,
Part II: Personal Dignity in self-rule.
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner: Welcoming tho Obama
administration, waiting for the 'government

monopoly on force,' Part I
For more info: The War on Guns "Duct Tape Plastic

Ties and Chains . "
Topics: Gun Rights , Anti-Gunners

ShareThis
Subscribe
C Feed
Next>)
Comments
Name
Email Address:
Comments:
David Codrea: OK, I got a response from Len on this. Let me say this is the
last time I'm going to address this-first off, I've moved on to other stories and
there isn't enough of me to keep going back to old posts and jumping every
time the chain is yanked, and secondly, because the audience here is general,
not even necessarily "gun people." and the tech stuff you guys are discussing
are too detailed for most visitors to this forum. Here's his response. If you want
to lake this further, do it on a gun board.
Good question!!! Several things here.

"NFA" has obviously some real experience and his questions are certainly
1775
htto://www .examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rie:hts-Fxaminer- v?..OOC)m 1ii? R-A rrt>~<;tP.rl-ciP.vP.lonmPnt-in-Gf'nroi
RIF
1/"0 /?00Q
Page 4of8
worthy of response. lffor no other reason than nearly every point he brings up
has been asked by the government at some point during my journey with this
product and it's situation.
"So that the readers of this forum might understand some of the complexity of
this issue, please answer these questions."
Before I go into his questions, lets lay out some facts that are self evident for
those of us who own machineguns. like NFA:
All lawfully registered MAC type machineguns are DOPEN BOLT" in
operation, that is the bo!t locks back during the cocking process, and stays
locked back until the trigger is activated.
*The ATF recognizes the lower portion of this machinegun lo be "the receiver".
ATF considers the upper portion that contains the bdll, recoil system, and
barrel {in some units the ammo feed system] to be "a gun part", not even a
firearm.
* ALL replacement and caliber conversion uppers for the MAC family of
machineguns are "OPEN BOLT" in operation.
* All of these without exception would fail the A TF's contrived test. Even the
plain jane stock O.E.M. woutd fail. If I took the tape and ziptie route that ATF
demonstrated in detail and put that on the stock unit. I have a zip gun. just as
illegal. same prison kind of crime. It converted the upper into a firearm. This
"test" will tum any upper that has a feed device into not only a firearm. but a
machinegun. ATF in it's own documents [shoestring letter] state VERY clearly
that the use of ordinary items to convert a firearm into full auto is unlawful, and
the items when attached, that convert the firearm into a machingun, the items
are themselves the definition a machinegun {26 USC 5845(b)"a collection of
parts that is solely and exclusively used to make a firearm into a machinegun}.
Thus the items not being used in an unlawful manner are just items ...
* The definition of a firearm frame or receiver is located in the Code of Feder~I
Regulations, 27 part 478.11 "That part of the firearm which provides housing
for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and is usually threaded at its forward
portion to receive the barrel". Applied to a MAC machinegun. there is no
hammer, but it does contain a bolt, and barrel. Where are they located on a
MAC? The upper. The unregulated, un-serial numbered, "not a firearm", upper.
The seized firearm as any other upper, ls not designed to fire at all unless it is
assembled on a MAC machinegun or pre~ June 21, 1982 legal open bolt MAC
semi {and it would only fire as a semi]. The installation on a machinegun, the
MAC registered lower acts as a conversion device, as it is solely intended to
convert the upper (firearm or not) into a machinegun. [ref. 26 USC 5845(b)]. It
is still a registered MG???
*I testified against ATF, Firearms enforcement Officer Max Kingery Jan 08 in
US v. Olofson, by April 08 Max Kingery was assigned to evaluate the
submitted product from my company. He is the one who contrtved the test. and
made the determination. I am a witness in a still pending case, and I am being
"leaned onw. This is not the first time ATF has taken out vengeance during a
court case.
Now for some of his questions;
"I was interested in your response that just holding the upper without any other
means of hand grip would be dangerous. Adding one is easy, w ith all due
respect."
With all due respect NFA: pulling a MAC machinegun bolt into a a sem ~ Is far
easier that even adding a handle to something ad hoc with a welder, and it is
reversible . and would require no tools or skills.
I would like to also point out as a machinegun shooter, you surely know about
thrust and recoil. Unlike a semi that "kicks" if you wfll, a machinegun firing
7.62x54R is a continued thrust, not unlike a jet engine. The product produces
85 foot pounds of thrusl. Even with a "handle" you onty got one hand on ft
while you try and cock it with the other. .. then "zoom 85 pound of pressure
slam into the hand holding it... ... pressure you can not not stop until It runs
dry ..... and you shoot yourself if you drop it!
"As far as A TF making regulations based on political assessments or issues of
public safety, unfortunately that is part of their mandate. N FA '34 was
specifically based on public safety issues. FWIW"
NFA, what you did not know was that this process and submission started
w ith
1776
RIF
httn://www .examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Ri2:hts-Examiner- v2009m 1d28-Arrested-develonment-in-Georni .. .
111012009
Page 5of8
many discussions with the Chief at Firearms Technology Branch prior to any
submission to them. To address concerns that ATF had over public safety
issues, the upper was registered as a Short Barreled Rifle, due to CFR 27,
478.11 public safety was served, as no prohibited person could ever possess
one, ATF would control transfer to new owners, same restrictions and tax as a
machinegun . Unless you are stating your lawfully possessed machineguns are
a public safety issue???
I urge you to look at the facts, and the ATF's own documents and the law. You
will then see through lhe ATF flim-flam.
Len
January 30, 9:06 AM
NFA: With all the knee jerk (esponses to ATF's evil, all from people who
haven't lhe slightest idea of what is at issue, it is finally good to hear the maker
describe how the upper was manufactured. So that the readers of this forum
might understand some of the complexity of this issue, please answer these
questions. One of the comments below by the
maker is that the upper was fitted with MAC parts. What parts in the upper are
MAC aside from the mounting hardware for the FA MAC lower? PKs fire from
an open bolt, by the tower on the carrier hitting the firing. Does your system
function the same way? Since you mention that the receiver is a semi-auto
design, how is the firing pin activated using the semi auto internals but for FA
operation with the MAC lower? I would assume it is hammer fired if the
internals are from the semi-auto PK design. I have seen a picture of the ATF
setup with the rear end of the receiver captured. Did ATF also add a hammer
to fire the gun? It is apparent that the recoil spring is part of the upper, too, so
how did the gun finre in ATF's harness if it is not designed with an ignition
system similar to the standard PK design?
I was interested in your response that just holding the upper without any other
means of hand grip would be dangerous. Adding one is easy, with all due
respect. Anyway, some of the devices I've seen guys playing with that are
homemade are truly inspiring and often without much in the way of support.
Also, the fact that there is no box attachment is also not relevant. Belts don't
have to be contained.
I would like some answers to these questions so I and others can get a better
idea of what the design entails for better understanding of ATF's response as
well as your responses.
I have no affiliation with ATF and own post- sample examples of PKs and also
own many other NFA weapons. There has been no way to understand what
the destgn is like until this forum has provoked the maker into addressing the
design rumors and questions. so please help make some
sense of ii so more rational opinions can be
forged. You will have mnore support for your cause if more of us n the NFA
world can understand exactly what you sent to ATF and what they did to make
it function as an MG upper.As far as ATF making regulations based on political
assessments or issues of public safety, unfortunately thal Is part of their
mandate. NFA '34 was specifically based on public safety Issues. FWIW
January 29. 4:59 PM
Second Amendment Sister: This video, The Gang (put out by JPFO.org)
should be required viewing for all gunowners.
January 29, 4:52 PM
Second Amendment Sister: This video, The Gang (put out by JPFO.org)
should be required viewing for all gunowners.
January 29. 4:22 PM
Kato: Oh boy, the worthless BATF is at it again wasting the taxpayers money
on unimportant nonsense. The brand new Kremlin on the Potomac will
probably start a big investigation over this also.
January 29, 1-29 PM
Dave: OMFG ROTFLMFAO Now the anti gun crowd are arresting inanamant
objects. Did ATFE read 1t it Maranda Rights and did the judge set ball for it?
ATFe has finally gone off the deepend. Thanks for printing this article \ needed
a good !aught! :)
January 29, 11 :54 AM
David Codrea: Per Len in response to "More to it":
"I also was taken by the context of the message. My thought's are that1777
this is
RIF

Page 6of8
someone in the industry who works closely with ATF and is given information.
The information is ATF spin . Patently false, but close to the truth. Makes sense
if you don't look to close.
'Len's upper was a virtually unaltered fullauto PK receiver.'
'Otherwise it was a factory PK receiver, read MG.'
The receiver was built new using parts from MAC parts of course. The feed,
bolt carrier, and a significant portion of the receiver are from an ATF approved
semiautomatic PKM. The PK feed system was used. Only the top cover and
feed tray are PKT [tanker version].
'Mount a 100 round belt box to the bottom of the receiver where it attaches and
one has a mini belt gun in 7.62X54R capable of 750 rpm and concealable.'
Way wrong answer. The receiver of my firearm is vastly different from a PK. In
fact the entirety of lhe bottom fifty percent is completely different. No
attachment points for boxes or ammo. Look at the pictures supplied by ATF.
Not to mention he forgets to tell everybody there would be no way to hold lhe
darned thing! There would be no way to stop it from firing once you pulled back
lhe cocking handle. More of a danger to the shooter. Big fireballs come out of
that thing [it is on you tube firing) .
He is also forgetting there are several other uppers for the MAC family that
ATF does not consider to even be a firearm . One carries 100 rounds of 9mm
and fires at over 1200 rounds a minute [if rigged like ATF's test]. It's far more
concealable, it's only about 12" long, has been available for years, and still no
crime committed with one!!! Doesn't hold water.
This guy goes on about his opinion, that DOJ will never let something like this
one the streets ... .Now we get to some meat...They don't 'Like' it. Lawful doesn't
even enter into the calculation."
January 29, 9:37 AM
Michael Z. Williamson: With some tubing. some metal, some pins and some
bars, I could make a lever action .30-30 into a machine gun.M
January 29, 1:21 AM
More to it: Some things to consider:
Len's upper was a virtually unaltered fullauto PK receiver, with the rear end
removed and altered to fit the MAC lower and the gas piston and gas tube
shortened. Otherwise it was a factory PK receiver, read MG, with intact feed,
FA bolt and carrier, recoil spring and only missing the fire control group. A
minor effort with some hand tools and a rear end cap could be fixed, and the
receiver was functional by retracting the bolt and letting it go. Mount a 100
round belt box to the bottom of the receiver where it attaches and one has a
mini belt gun in 7.62X54R capable of 750 rpm and concealable. IMO, ATF,
now under the purview of DOJ would never allow something like this to be
produced in any quantity that might make it to the street. From the perspective
of the gun culture, any crime committed with this type of weapon would weigh
very heavily against the NFa community and the gun culture at large.
January 28, 9:28 PM
CarlS: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and firearms is running amok. Their
actions demonstrate, consistently, time and time again, that they lack a basic
understanding of our language, our Constitution, and believe they are above
the law. Of course, the agency is unconstitutional, anyway, which makes all
employees thereof criminals. But this one takes the cake: They're arresting
( and one assumes, prosecuting a metal part ! One which did not, in fact,
commit any crime, until they made extensive modifications. Hmmm, can the
metal part claim "entrapment" and that its' "confession" was "tortured'"' out of it,
thus making the charge null and void. Does a metal part have rights, and how
will it get a fair trial, by a jury of its' peers, in accordance with our over-arching
primary laws?
January 28, 7:40 PM
John Doe: The inmates are running the asylum.
January 28, 5:20 PM
Steiner: Normal citizens would think that actions could only be filed against
people and not against inanimate objects, although I do remember CA.
arresting some guys Ford tractor after he plowed over some endangered
1778
RIF
1/1012009
Page 7of8
species. The BATFU is clearly out of control and has been for years. This is all
about making Len's life miserable and nothing else. We need to be mailing out
the three teabags. I hope everyone is buckled in for the next 4yrs.
January 28, 430 PM
FALPhil: It is not uncommon for the ATF to file complaints against individual
guns. In fact, one of the more famous cases, one which dispelled the "once a
machine gun, always a machine gun" myth was US vs One FAL Rifle. In that
case the ATF got their butts handed to themby the judge.
January 28, 4:16 PM
Tom: For those who may read this and NOT know.
ATF has declared shoestrings as machine guns.
bobemet.com/blogfas sets_d52.c1674e1c71 ab33adbd8b 1fc6bfac26a11a7ddc67 .jpg
One simple object with NO creativity or skill required. In that case llRC the
person who asked wanted to see how stupid they were. The ATF played along.
In this case, and many many others the ATF. with no written guidelines or
procedures, do whatever they have to in order to determine it's a machine gun.
January 28, 4:16 PM
Bill Akins: This is a clear case of the BATFE persecuting and exacting
revenge against Len Savage for his expert witness testimony against them in
other cases. Even the individual that BATFE has assigned to this case is the
same individual BATFE agent Mr Savage testified as an expert witness against
in a previous trial. The BATFE violates the law constantly and congress will not
reel them in. I know, I invented the Akins accelerator rifle stock that allows a
person to bumpfire their rifle within a stationary stock. The BATFE TWICE
approved it for two years, then as soon as I started selling it (after thousands in
start up costs) , the BATFE changed their minds and declared it a machine gun
even though it is not a firearm at all but just a stock and even though the
original factory trigger functions once for each shot fired. My rifle stock case is
under appeal in civil court. Congress has told BATFE to get a standardized,
scientific, repeatable, written classification system in place to determine what is
or is not a firearm and what is or is not a machine gun. But BATFE has not
done so. The reason is because they want to be able to make up whatever
ruling they want without any type of classification procedure other than the non
scientific, arbitrary whims they currently use that creates situations where one
manufacturer's item is approved by them, but another manufacturer's almost
identical item is disallowed. The current classification system at BATFE's tech
branch is not a system at all. It is political, arbitrary whim, and has no basis in
repeatable, written, scientific standards.
January 28, 3:18 PM
Mike Easton: The BATF consists of uncultured, undisiplined, low-rent,
perjuring, murdering, domestic terrorists. No more ; no less!
January 28, 3:16 PM
Kent McManigal: At its foundation, this is an assault upon the mind and
creativity.
January 28, 2:53 PM
afraid of the unarmed women killers: Another example of an agency gone
astray. based on there example the FAA should be raiding houses and
stomping cats for minor safety infractions. This type of action will continue in
the foreseeable future. The best part is they approved a similar version of this
and rescinded the approval 6 months later After a court case in which Len
testified. They lost and got mad. This is the trampling of freedom in action. Tow
the party line or face death by fire. The whole group should be shut down for
being Nazi's
January 28, 2:26 PM
De Dogs Examiner: ROTFL. No wonder I have so much trouble at the DMV,
they are checking the arrest record of my vehicles. My motorcycle is wanted
for being so darn fun. It's a fugitive and I'm harboring it in my garage. Don't tell
anybody.
January 28, 1:56 PM
Paul: If I follow the ATF's logic, then any material that a person. using their
imagination, is made to get any firearm to fire at least 2 shots per trigger pull.
1779
RIF
1/10/2009
Page 8of8
Now there are many rube-goldburg contraptions that can be invented to make
even a single shot 'self load' and fire more than one round. I would think almost
any material made by man, and nature!!, then could be used to make a
'machinegun'! Ah ... so that's Obama's plan! The State owns everything!
January 28, 1:39 PM
1780
httn//www
ex~miner . comhc-l 4l7-G11n-"Ri 11ht~-FirnminPr-v?OOQm1 tt?R-ArrP~tPn -n P'1PlnnmPnt-in-r.Pnroi
RIF
1110 /? ()()Q
1781
RIF
'
1782
RIF
.:1
1783
RIF
:~
:>_,.._
..
~ -._ .. fi
- ~
l''.'''~uu~~1uuunr111~~11~.
'
The first prototype bolt with a long nylon spacer
i~~~~
_'
-c.=- .
c...---
=:a
,r
L
.
"
~,.
-1.v:~ ~ . ..
1
,..J
. '
The second prototype bolt with a five

ounce weight and a short spacer
~
1784
RIF
..
Visit SAR on line at: HIWW.smallarmsN!View.com
llAC
Text & Photo!
by Captain Monty Mendenha I
Ten years ago, few people gave a
MAClO a second look. For most,
MACl Os and M 11 s were near the bottom
of the list of desirable submachine guns.
This situation began changing with the introduction of an effective, relatively inexpensive, method of reducing the fast cyclic rates ofMACs and Mils. More recently, the Technical Branch of ATF has
issued several favorable letter rulings that
permit innovative modifications to both of
these lower priced submachine guns. Using these rulings, individuals and manufacturers have created new upper receivers for MA Cs and Ml 1s that give them an
entirely new character. One of the most
innovative of these new upper receivers
was developed by Len Savage.
Now that the high capacity magazine ban
has lifted, Calico Light Weapon Systems
is again manufacturing a compact, 50round, helical magazine for its MSO
9x19mm carbine. Len Savage modified
the upper receiver ofa Calico M50 so that
it will mate with an unmodified MAC IO
lower receiver.
semi (belt-fed semiautomatic upper receiver for a MAC), I submitted separate

designs to the Tech Branch - one that used
an FAL lower and one that used an Mll
upper. The Ml 1 upper was declared to be
a machine gun and I filed a form two and
got it back. The Calico MAC came about
as a result of my conference calls with the
Tech Branch. They helped a lot by defining just exactly what the problems were
with the Mll upper that I had submitted.
I asked them, "What's the technical difference between Anthony Smith's Ml 11
Suomi-drum upper and mine?" They are
both uppers for the M 11. They said, "Well,

your upper and Anthony Smith's upper
push off of the lower receiver with the recoil system and doesn't require a TASK
Slow Fire bolt and so forth." (For more
information about Anthony Smith's Ml 1/
Suomi-drum upper receiver, read Small
Anns Review, Volume 9, Number 5.)

Well I was just sitting there looking
around the shop and saw a Calico 9mm
pistol hanging there. John Craig (West
Georgia Armory) was there too. We col
laborate on a lot of projects. We put our
heads together end came up with a line-
Leo Savage's Calico MAC with a

fixed wood stock and an original
MAC10/9mm.
SAR: Len, what inspiredyou to make the
Calico upper receiver for your MAC?

Savage: Back when I designed the RPO
1785
The Snillll Arms Rt!Vinil VoL 10, No. 2 Novt!mber, 2006
RIF
89
Visit SAR on line at: "'"'"~sm4llamcsrrview.ct1m
bad to extend everything foiward because

ofthe longer magazine and cut a new sear
ADUAnCED
TECHnOLOGY.1nc.
face.
SAR: You placed a spacer behind the bolt

to take up the extra space in the lengthened receiver. Why did you do that? With
no more time than it took to make the
spacer, you could have added a lengthened operating spring, guide rod and ejector. That would have nearly doubled the
bolt travel distance and reduced the cyclic rate considerably.
Savage: We were in a hurry to make the

prototype for the Tech Branch to evaluate.
The slow fire will be easier. With it, the
trigger sear will catch the front ofthe bolt
and we wontneed a new sear face.
SAR: I assume that when you go into production with these...
J;~ I!Jt t!11!1:1,JSllll:I
mcl i1J:l!I :1111i.1i11~:1;1
Savage: I dont have the facilities to do

large-scale production but I got an email
from the President of Calico. He said, "I
heard you are making a MAC receiver that
uses Calico magazines." Nothing is finalized but Calico may be manufacturing
them. You see I enjoy designing and getting approvals, I just am not set up for
large-scale manufacturing.
!Jw~lU.llit}l~l!:?ll!;iu;
J~ilill~
JJw~;l~1111r:;1i:1
HIR/NEF
_otfgrce
(Rifle)
Tactical Butifttil:
with
Forend
.J~~jf.JS
J
::duif;ffit;t Mirr'W ilkul
JJj11l7i:t~~
SAR: You have already received an ATF

Technical Branch approval for a belt-fed
7. 62x39mm MAC and you helped Eric
Graetz (Lake Side Arms) to get a non-gun
classification for his belt fed .22LR LM7
upper for the MI 6. Can you tell me what
else you are working on now?
H&R/NEF
ShotForce
Tactical
Buttstock
With.
Savage: I am working on a belt fed .45

ACP conversion for the MAC. It uses a
stock 1919 top cover.
F.iitnd
SAR: Will you manufacture the special

links for it?
Savage: No need to. It uses regular Ml3
links like a M60. I did it because Jim
Ballou told me about a .38 caliber belt fed
from the 1930s. He helps me test a lot
Jim's a great guy but he can break anything. If something survives Jim Ballou,
it's unbreakable.
SAR: I am not sure ifthat is a compliment
or not. You have some very exciting
projects planned. I hope that you will let
1786
The SmaJJ Arms Review VoL 10, No. 2 Nt1vember, 2006
RIF
91
Vult SAR OD line at: WW1t1.s""'1111nrrsreview.co111
Calico front sight is a parallel-sided post

that bas both windage and elevation knobs
to adjust the bullet's point of impact The
sights are highly visible as well. The rear

sight is affixed to the magazine and it is
non-adjustable, being a rectangular square.
White dots on the sights assist in making a
fast sight alignment in low light conditions.
The Calico Mac cycles at 1,050 rounds
per minute with Federal ll 5g ammunition.
Its shoots much like any other MAClO/
9mm that has a good stock and fore grip.
When the SO-round magazine is empty,
simultaneously grasp and squeeze the
magazine latches (located on the right and
left sides of the magazine) and lift the
magazine to remove it.
Replacing an expended helical magazine
with a full ooe requires somewhat more
time thao that which is required to insert a
stick magazine into theMAClO's original
magazine well. Stick magazines can be
carried in pouches that correctly orient
them for fast insertion and their shape also
makes it intuitive to orient them properly
with the magazine well. The Calico helical magazines are cylindrically shaped.
After one is removed from its carrying
pouch, it must be visually evaluated to orient it properly before inserting it into its
slot in the receiver. Due to the extra time
that is required for this, a Calico MAC user
would be at a disadvantage in a submachine gun match. Moreover, due to the
location of the magazine, it would be difficult to mount an optical sight
In a law enforcement scenario, given its
compact size, its high capacity magazine
and its reliability, a Calico Mac would be
a very good entry weapon for a SWAT team
member. Ifused for this purpose however,
the Calico MAC should be carried on an
H&K style sling. If it runs dry during a
fire fight, its user would not attempt to reload. Instead, be would release the Calico
MAC and let it fall to his side as be drew
bis handgun.
Len Savage's Calico MAC

Caliber.
9xl 9mm Parabellum
Operation:
Open bolt, unlocked breech, advanced

ignition, semi and full-auto
Cyclic Rate:
1,050 xpm
Muzzle Velocity
Federal 115g ball:
1,215 fps
Weight
Empty:
Loaded:
9.6 lbs. (4.6 kg)

11.6 lbs. (5.5 kg)
Length
Stock folded:
Sock open:
19.75 in. (502 nnn)

29.25 in. (743 mm)
Barrel Length:
5.4 in. (137 mm)
Magazine:
SO-round helical feeding
Magazine weight
Empty:
Loaded:
10.5 oz (.300 kg)

2.0 lbs. (.886 kg)
Sights:
Fixed rear sight and a front sight that is

adjustable for windage and elevation
Manufacturer:
Militacy Armament Coxporation, Calico

and Len Savage
Calico Company was recently sold to a

new owner. The new owner has expressed
an interest in producing Calico MAC upper receivers but his first priority is getting the Calico MSO semiautomatic carbine
back into full production. If there are future Calico MAC developments, expect a
full report in Small Arms Review.
......
Conclusions
Len Savage's Calico MAC is an interesting, useful, improvement to a MAClO.

It is also one ofthe first illustrations of the
"new" ATF's more helpful attitude toward
the designers of fireann innovations. We
all have good reason to hope that this helpful attitude will be the future norm.
Whether or not The Calico Mac will be
produced commercially is uncertain. The
Blue Pres
_ Amonthly color pu
lication full of progres
sive reloading equi
ment; shooting ac
sories; informative
entertaining and con
troversial articles; an
unabashed opinion
www.sa.dillonprecision.com
FR&
#A3HBD _Clll 80071!3145

1787
The SmoJJ Arms Reikw VoL IO, No. 2 November, 2006
Calico Light Weapon Systems
1489 Greg Street

Sparks, NV 89431-5914
(775) 358-6000
http://mem.tcon.net/users/5010/5491/
calico.htm
4140 M11/9mm Machined Sears

4150 M11 /9mm Selectnrs
NEW M11/9mm SMG Dro~n
Slow Flre Bolts Na DrmJ NfBh1
Ph: (706) 885-2058
P.O. Box 1342
Franklin, GA 30217
RIF
U.S.Departnientof Jnstice

M~ WV 25401
ll"li.-W.mf.Jlll\'
903050(b) (6)
3311/2007-615
JUN 25 2007
(b) (6)
Dear (b) (6)

On February 6, 2004 you wrote to the Fireanns Technology Branch (FTB) of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) inquiring about the legality of a
small section of string intended for use as a means for increasing the cycling rate of a
semiautomatic rifle. We responded on September 30, 2004. In that letter we stated:
In 1996, FTB examined and classified a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop at
each end. The string was attached to the cocking handle of a semiautomatic rifle
and was looped around the trigger and attached to the shooter's finger. The
device caused the weapon to fire repeatedly until finger pressure was released
from the string. Because this item was designed and intended to convert a
semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, FTB determined that it was a machinegun
as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). (Emphasis in original).
Upon further review, we have determined that the string by itself is not a machinegun,
whether or not there are loops tied on the ends. However, when the string is added to a
semiautomatic firearm as you proposed in order to increase the cycling rate of that rifle,
the result is a firearm that fires automatically and consequently would be classified as a
machinegun. To the extent that prior AlF classification letters are inconsistent with this
letter, they are hereby overruled.
We hope that this clarifies our position. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
Acting Chief, Firearms 'f.echnology Branch
1788
RIP
Page 1or1
a.
U.S. Departmenl or JtLCitice

It - .
Buttau of Alcoho~ Tobacco.

Fireanns and Explosi\lcS
3.&.
SEP 8 0 2004
903050:(b) (6)
3311/2004-379
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
. r.
-----(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103 -----~
Dear
This refers lo Your J~ ofF~niary 6, 2004. ro the Burcsu of Alcohol. Tob3Cco, Ftreanns a
Explosives (ATF). Fireanns Technology Branch (Fl'B), in which you inquired about the leg;
of a small section of siring intended for use as 11 means for increasing the cycling ralc of a
semiautomatic rifie.
As you may be aware. the National Firearms Act. 26 U.S.C. S845(b). defines "'macbinc:gur
include the following:
. OD}" weapon
that shoots. is designed to shoot, or C11D be n:zdsly n:stuml ID shoot. automabcDlly mo
thm ane shoL without mmmal rcloadmg. b}r n single funcbon of the ttigcr. This acrm shall also mcl
lhe frame or receiver of any such weapon. mry part deslped u.d Intended solety and excbastvely,
comblaallo11 of paras designed and intended.. for ase in. coawrtlng a weapon hlto a macldaegnn
any combimmon of p3l'tS from which u rmc:bincgun can be ussembt~ if such pans arc in lhe p05SCSS
or under the cootroJ of a per5on (bolding added].
In 1996. FTB examined md classified u 14-inch long shoestring wilh a loop at ench end. Th
string was attached to the cocking bnndJe of a semiautomatic rifle and was looped around lhc
trigger ond auached to the shooter's linger. The device cauied the weapon to fire repeatedly
until linger pressure was released fiom lhe string. Because this item was designed and imen
to convert a semiautomatic riDe into u machinegun. FTB determined that it was a machioeg;
as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b}.
We thank you for your inquiryt regret the delay in response. and trusl the forqoing has been
responsive.
Sinct:Rly yours,
s-
Slerling.
Zixon
http://www.autocbart.com/Guns/A TF_Ruling_2004-09-30_String~Trick.jpg
1789
1/3/2005
RIP
I
[OCR conversion with cleanup of letter obtained via FOIA . ]
[Redactions are in the original as provided in response to the FOIA demand.]
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
[symbols redacted]
JUL
23 1996
Name Redacted)
Address Redacted)
City, ST Zip Redacted]
Dear [Redacted]
This is in response to your letter of recent date, to
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). In
your letter, you request classificatiun of a device
which you have designed to work on your semiautomatic
firearms. You have also .submitted a sample of the
device for our examination .
Title 18 united States code (u.s.c.), Chapter 44,
922(0) makes it unlawful for any person to possess,
transfer or manufacturer [sic] a machinegun which was not
registered in accordance with the provisions of the
National Firearms Act (NFA) prior to May 19, 1986.
1
As defined in Title 26 u.s.c., Chapter 53, 584S(b),

of the NFA, the term "machinegun" means any weapon
trigger. The ter11 shall also include the frame or
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of
weapon into a machinegun, and any compbination of parts
from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts
are in 'the possession or under cqntrol of a person.
The submitted SaJIPle is a length of shoe string
end of this page]
1790
RIF
-2(Name
Redacted]
[approximately 7 lines of text redacted at the top of

this page]
determined that they are auxiliary trigger mechanisms

which are designed and intended for use in converting a
semiauto11atic rifle into a machinegun; therefore, they
are machineguns as defined in 5845(b). Based upon
our examination of the submitted device and the
sample device is also an auxiliary trig~er mechanism
and a "machinegun" as defined in the th1 rd paragraph of
this letter.
a 11achinegun which is not registered in accordance with
the provisions of the NFA . since we are unable to
establish that the submitted sample was manufactured
and 922(0), we are unable to return it to you, as
submitted. However, we can return your shoe string
without the loops.
The shoe string which you submitted (less the loops) is
being returned under separate cover.
We regret that we are unable to respond 110re favorably
at the present time. If you have further questions
concerning this matter, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
[SiQnature of Official Redacted]
chief, Firearms Technology Branch
1791
RIF
rai 001
USAO Atlanta
10/30/2008 15 : 49 FAX (b) (6)
David E. Nahmias
United States Attorney
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER PAGE

U.S. Attorney's Office
Sulla 600
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel:
Fax:
404-581-6000
404-581-6181
TO:
FROM:
(b) (6)
ATF - ATLANTA
AUSA (b) (6)
Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Georgia
Sender's Phone No.:
(b) (6)
Recipient's Fax No.:
(b) (6)
Date: October 30, 2008
Pages 7 plus cover sheet
Re: Please see attached correspondence from LEN SAVAGE
U.S. ATTORNEY FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION CONTAINING INFORMATION

SUBJECT TO ATTORNEY CONFIDENTIALITY
The lnfonnatlon contained In this facsimile message, and any and all accompanying documents
constitutes information subject to attorney confidantiallty. This information Is the property of the U.
S. Attorney's Office. If you are not the Intended recipient of this lnfonnatlon, any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or the taking of any action In reliance on this lnfonnation is strictly prohibited. If you
received this Information in error, please notify us Immediately at the above number to make
arrangements for its return to us. Thank you.
INSTRUCTIONS
IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY SENDER OF ANY DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSMISSION.
PLEASE NOTIFY SENDER OF RECEIPT BY TELEPHONE.
1792
RIP
10/30/2008 15:49 FAX (b) (6)
USAO Atlanta
.--
laJ 002
p.1
?DS-675-0818
Len Savace
tti$torie ~rmm L>.b.C.
m:.-~--
70~675-0287
Home
706-675-0818 Shop
ATTENTION: AUSA (b) (6)

RE: Fleming MAC-22 BATFE approval letter
Dear (b) (6)
Thank you for your diligence in this matter [#771010-08-0084). I apologize for not sending this
letter earlier. Please note that A TF did acknowledge that this upper is for machineguns only and
that it is considered a "caliber conversion kit".
I am Looking forward to hearing from you Friday.
Len Savage
/-
1793
RIP
USAO Atlanta
10/ 30 / 2008 15:49 FAX (b) (6)
Len
Ill 003
?os-s?s -ae 1 e
Sava~e
p.2
.I
.- ,.
~ -:-:,\;._,. ;, . fl!" ' : :-- ~ r'
., .;
,.~~
.J;'"';
..

SU REAU OF ALCOHOL. TOBACCO AtfD FIREARNJS
.
.
WASHINGTON, D.C. ZOZZ6 .
..
LB:F:'rE:EMO
MAY 171913
3311.4
'
..
: . : r
. - ..
1794
RIP
.. .. ..
r .t ~~
10/30/2008 15:50 FAX (b) (6)
USAO Atlanta
Len
Sava~e
la! 004
p.1
706-675-0818
r"
11i$forie Tfrm~ b.:b.v.
::..!..
706-675-0287 Home
706-675-08:18 Shop
ATTENTION: AUSA
(b) (6)
RE: ATF RULING 2008-1

Dear (b) (6)
I do not know if you have cndosed docwnent, and I had discussed it briefly during our meeting
last week. Though this is a different firearm, the policy of the A TF is quite clear with respect to
27 CFR 478.11: definition of a firearm frame or receiver.
Please note:
"The upper assembly ofthe FNC rifle is more properly classified as the receiver.
The upper assembly ofthe FNC rifle houses thl! bolt and provides a connection point tor
the barreL Moreover, lhe upper assembly is classified as the receiver on similar type.~ of
Firearms",
The ruling spccically was made so that a Tegistcred macbinegun could be used in a host FNC
rifle~ not un1ikc my seized rifle is to be used as a host for a registered mechinegun.
Respectfully.
1795
RIP
10/30/2008 15 : 50 FAX (b) (6)
USAO Atlanta
Len Savage
la! 005
706-675-0818
p.2
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3): DEFINITION OF FIREARM

18 U.S.C. 922(0): TRANSFER OR POSSESSION OF MACHINEGUN
18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(23): DEFINITION OF MACHINEGUN
26 U.S.C. ~45(b): DEFINITION OF MACHINEGUN
27 CFR 478.11: DEFINITION OF FIREARM FRAME OR RECEIVER
The upper assembly ofthe Fabrique Nationale Hental SA. (FN) FNC rifle is
classified as the receiver ofrhe firearm for purposes ofthe Gun Control Act, 18 U.S. C.
Chapter 44. and the National Firearms Acl, 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
A TF Rul. 2008-.t
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco. Fireanns and Explosives (ATF) has recently received
inquiries concerning the installation of a registered scar into the FN FNC rifle. These
sears, when installed, allow a semiautomatic FNC rifle to be converted into a machinegun.
Prior to May 19, 1986, a number of these scars made for the FNC ri ne were registered as
machineguns in the National Firearms Re&istration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). These
sears were required to _be registered in the NFRTR as machineguns because they are parts
designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in converting a weapon into a
machinegun.
In order to install a registered FNC sear into a host FNC rifle, a hole must be drilled into
the lower assembly and a portion oflhe soJid area of the lower assembly between the
magazine well and the compartment for the trigger mechanism must be milled out. If the
lower assembly were to be classified as the receiver, any such modifications would create a
new machinegun receiver, potentially in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(0) (prohibiting the
transfer or possession of a machinegun except for official Federal. State, or local
government use).
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) at 18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(23), and the National Firearms
Act (NFA) at 26 U.S .C . S845(b). define the term "machinegun" as nany weapon which
shoots. is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than
one shot, without manuol reloading. by a single function of the trigger." The term also
includes "the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely
and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a
weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person." (See also
27 CFR 478. 11, 479.11). Title 27. Code of Federal Regulations. section 478.J J defines a
..firearm receiver" 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 FNC rifle consists of two major assemblies, the upper assembly and the lower
assembly. The lower assembly houses the trigger. hammer, disconnector, safety/selector,
1796
RIP
10/3012008 15 : 51 FAX (b) (6)
USAO Atlanta
Len S8vace
igi 006
p.3
?06-675-0818
-2-
..
and an automatic trip lever in the automatic version. It also incorporates a pistol grip and a
magazine release. The upper assembly houses a barrel that is attached to the upper
assembly by means ofa barrel extension. It also houses the bolt carrier with gas piston
affixed, gas tub~ and handguard, bolt. operating rod and spring. The two assemblies arc
mounted together with a front and rear takcdown pin. Since 1981 , ATF has classified the
lower assembly as the receiver for purposes of the OCA and NFA.
ATF has reconsidered its classification orthe lower assembly ofthe F'NC rifle as the
receiver. The upper assembly of the FNC rifle is more properly classified as the receiver.
The u er assembl of the FNC rifle houses the bolt and rovidcs a connection oint for
the arrel. Moreover, the upper assembly is classified as the receiver on similar types of
firearms. to include other FN rifles, such as the FN F AL and FN SCAR. Reclassification
of the upper assembly as the receiver will also allow the continued installation ofa
lawfully registered sear into an FNC rifle because no modification to the receiver, which is
the upper assembly, is required to properly install the sear.
Held. the upper assembly of the FN FNC rifle is the receiver of the fireann.
Heldfurther, in the event a licensed manufacturer in the United States
manufactures a new firearm that is substantially similar to the FN FNC rifle, it must be
marked with a model designation other than 'FNC."
To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any previous ATF classifications, they are
hereby superseded.
Date approved: May 27, 2008

Michael J. Sullivan
Acting Director
1797
RIP
10/30/2008 15:51 FAX (b) (6)

I
USAO Atlanta
Len
~007
706-675-0B!B
Sava~e
P 1
tti$forie ~rm~ b.b.C.
ii'J3
mi =
706-675-0287 Home
706-675-0818 Shop
ATTENTION: AUSA (b) (6)

RE: Fleming MAC-22 B.A TFE approval letter
Dear (b) (6)

Thank you for your diligence in this matter [#771010-08-0084]. I apologize for not sending this
letter earlier. Please note that ATF did acknowledge that this upp~ is for machineguns only and
that it is considered a ..caliber conversion kit".
I am looking forward
to hearing
from you Friday.
Respectfully.
Len Savage
/--
1798
RIP
10130/2008 15:51 FAX (b) (6)
la! 008
U5AO Atlanta
Len Savage
706-675-08 18
.:
'
p.Z
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY .

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL. TOBACC:O AND FIREAR"'S
WASHINGTON,D.c. ZDz-:a .
.
.'
...
--
1799
RIP
..
..
,
.'

bUREAU OF AL.COHOL. TODACCO AND FIREARMS
WASH IN(; TON, D . C. t02Z6
'
LB:F:TE:EHO
MAY 111993
JJll.4
. -\
Hr. Willia11 H .Flelllinq

Fle111in9 F,~rearilla, Inc.
7720 East l::Z& s treet North

Collin.avill, ~klphoMa 74021
Dear Hr. F1eaih9;
.' .
'
'
.,
.
I
1800
RIF
[OCR conversion with cleanup of letter obtained via FOIA.]

OEPARTIIENT OF THE TREASURY

BIJREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREAR~IS
(symbols redacted]
JUL
23 1996
Name Redacted]
Address Redacted]
City, ST Zip Redatted)
Dear [Redacted]
res~nse to your letter of recent date, to
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fi rearms (ATF). In
your letter, you request classification of a device
which you have designed to 11ork on your semiautomatic
firearms. Vou have also submitted a sample of the
This is in
cu.
Title 18 united States C<>de

s. c.), Chapur 44,
trans fer or mn.nufac:turer (si cJ a rnachi negun which was not
registered in accordance .-ii th the provision$ of the
National Firearms Ai:t (NFA) prior to 1o1ay 19, 1986.
As defined in Title 26 u . s.c . , chapter 53, ~ S845(b),
of the NFA, the tern "machi negun" means any .-1eapon
which shoots. is designed to shoot, or can be readily
without nianual reloading, by a single function of the
trig9er. The term sha11 a1so inc1uile the frame or
rec:ewer of a!l)' such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely alld exclusively, or combination of
weapon into a machinegun, and any compbinat:ion of parts
fl"Or.l which a rnadn negun can be assembled if such parts
are in the possession or under control of a person.

end of this page]
1801
RIF
- 2[iNilt!l e Redacted]
[n1?pr o:dmntely 7 lines of text redacted at the top of

this pngr.!]
ATF
has previously examined simi 1 ar devi c;es and
detemitled that they are auxiliary t:rigger mec;hanisrns

wnicll are designed and intended Tor use in c;onverting a
semi automa"tic rif1 e into a machinegun; therefore. they
are machine~1ms as defined in. 5845(b). Based upon

our examirlation of the sub-mitted devic::e and the
information you providedf it is our opinion that the
sample device is a1so an auxiliary trig~er mechanism
artd a "machfoegun" as defined in the third paragraph of
this letter.
rt is unlawful for a11Yone to make 1 P-Ossess 1 or transfer
a tl)ac:hinegun which 1s not: regi ste rei:I in accordance vii th

the provisions of the NfA. since we are unable to
establish that the subnrl tt:ed sample '1'1as manufactured
and transferred in accordance the provis1ons of the NFA
and~ ~22(o), we are unable to return 1~ to you. as
subai1 tted. However, we can return your shoe string
without the loops .
The shoe stri t'!9 whi ch you submitted Cl ess the loops) 1 s.
bei og returned under separate cover.
'Ne r egret that we are unab l i! m respond mo re favo rab 1y

at tile 1,>res r.m~ "time. If you have fu rthe.r questions
c:onc:erni Ilg th1 s Batter, pl ~ase contact us.
sincerely yours.
[signature of official Redacted]

[Name of official Reda~ted]
chief, Firearms Technology Branch
1802
RIF
U.S. Dcpnrtmcnt or Justice

Bure11u of Alcohol. Tobacco,
Fircnrms and Explosi\e~
SEP 3 0 2004
903050:(b) (6)
331112004-3 79
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
Dear (b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103

This refers to ynur letter of Febn1ary 6, 2004, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, F1reanns nml
Explosi\'es (ATF), Firearms Techno!oin Branch (FTB), in which you inqum.-0 about the Jcg:lllly
or11 smnll sccuon of siring intended for use ;is a means for increasing the eycling rate of a
scmi11ulomn1ic rifle.
As you may be nware, thi; Notional F'ireanns Act, 26 U.S.C. 58.i3(b). defmes '"machincgun" lo
..any weapon that shoo~, i$ designed to shoot, or can be readily restored lo shoot, nulomnticnlly more
than one shot, without manual rclo~ding. by a single function of the trigger. This ti:rm shall nlso include
the .lhtmc or ~ci''l!I' of any such wopon, Any p11r1 deslgnctl 1111d lntcmkd solely and exclushcly, or
combination or parts dl!SIGn~d 11nd lnl cnd~tl, for use ht con,crtlng a weapon Into 11 muchlnq:un, :md
any combinahon of p:irts from which n mnchinc:gun can be wembled if Uch p:im are in the pos&en1on
or under the control ofn person (boldlng addal)
Jn ICJ96, FTB cx:unincd nnd cUtssilied a 14-inch long shoestring with 11 loop nl each end. The
string was eitnchcd 10 the cocldng handle of a scmi:iutomutic rine and was looped nround the
trigger and l\tu'.lched to the shooter's finger. The device c11uscd the wenpon to fin: repcntc:dly
until finger pressure was n:lcesed from the string. Bec:iuse this item was designed nnd intended
to con\'i:rt a scminulom:itic rifle into a mnchinegun, FTB determined U1at il WllS 11 mnchincgun
us defined in 26 U.S.C- SS45(b).
Wc thank you for your inquiry, re~l the delny in response, and trust the foregoing h:is been
responsive.
Sincerely yours,
1803
RIP
Pagel ofl
P&P;utTHEllT or THe TRASO~Y
Bu:eau of Alcohol, Tobacco nd r1ree: :ia
WAhinoton, o.c. 20226
JUN 7
19~4
CC- <3,72 ) FC : JBP

M1'.0RA!ICUH TO: Special 1.9ent in Charge
Detroit :1eld ' !vision
FllQi:
SUllJ'tCT:
Thia is in
Associt Chle! Counsel

(rirearms And E~plosivesJ
Policy Claritict1on -- Conversion Kits
=espon~e
to yocr
reque$~ !o~
an cpinlon whether
macl\ine converoion l<it ia a tireft:a" tor puzposea of the Gun

Control Act ot 1968 (GC;>.J , 18 u.s.c. ~pte>r 44. You advise that
this opinion is sought by the United Stat District Cou~ tor the
&&stem lllstrlct o! Mlchi;an .
For purposes of the GCA, the tc:ia "firearm" ia detined in
section 92l(a) 13) to ~an:
18 u.s.C.
(A) any weapon (including starter gun) which will or is

daaiqned to or ay readily be converted to expel a projectile
by th ction oC an esploaiYe; (B) th tr1111:a or receiver o!
any such weapon; CC) ny Cireaca r:iu!Clar or Clreara silencer;
or (0) any destruct17& device .
Hchinequn conversion kits are not ~ng th ite:s defined as
!!.:ean:s by section 921(aJ tll . Thora!ore, roachine gun conversion
kite are not aubject to requlat1on aa !i:ea~ under elle Gel\. For
eita:1ple, a person en;a;ed in the buslnas of delin9 only in auch
kits would ~ct be re<r~1red to obtain a l1ce:ise aa a d&alr in
!!raarllUI undor :he GCA. Also, a person who transferred a
ac.~1negun conversion kit to a !eloz: or 0th.er pc~son prohibited
tra::i. receiving or poascsolnq !ir oa:::io wou.ld no t violate 18 o.s.c.
soctloo 9221dl, nor would the proh!bltod peraon ' s roceipt or
possession of the kit violate 16 U.S.C. eectlon 922 t q) .
- 2 -
Special l\l;ent in Charq

C.tro1t Field Olviaion
HoweYOr, machlnegun conversi on kits are within the definition cf
"llachinequn !or p.._-posaa o! the GCA and a:o, tb..retore, sll.bject to
all GCA controls !mposed upon i:iachine.,una. l'or CCA purpofes, the
definition of ":.achinequn in 18 u.s.c. section 92l(al(231
incorporate the definition of s uch ton. in :he National Firea.c:a
Act, 26 O.S.C. section 5845(bJ. Aa de!J.ned by section ~84S(bJ,
":oacb!nqun ~ans, ai:aor.q other things, "any . c:ambl.~ation o!
prts del;:ied and inter.ded, fo: uaa in eonYert!nq a wepon inta a
aacbine~un, i.e., ioachinegi:n convarsion kit .
Thus, unde: the
GC>., a =ach~negun ccnve:sion kit ia, Co: exacpl , a 111achina;un
subject to tho prchl.!>ltion with rospcct 1:0 posses9ion 4tl~ trans!er
o! :oachine;:.:.~s in 18 u.s.c. oactlon 9ZZ [ol and the prohibition in
18 u.s.c. ction la) 14) aqalnst transportin9 l!lllchine9w:a
interotate without the approval o! tho 5e.:ret.ary o! the freaaury,
Ploaee adYise i! you
~avo
11ny qucstlans ro9arding
t.~ia
opinion.
{dtinlld)
Jack
a.
Ptteroon
hnp://www.cs.cmu.cclufafs/csluscr/wbardwcl/publiclnfalist/11tf_le1tcr3 7 txl
1804
6/1812009
RIF
Page 1 of 3
TEST AND EXAM OF HISTORIC ARMS LLC

7.62x54R CALIBER CONVERSION SYSTEM (HAS4RCCS)
JUNE 1O, 2009
BACKGROUND
The Historic Arms LLC 7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System [HA54RCCS] is a device
from a MAC-IO, which contains the MAC-lO's fire control group, is properly attached to
the HA54RCCS.
The HA54RCCS can be made to effect uncontrollable firing (Sputter Gun) if the
should be classified as unregistered conversion devices (l) because they convert the
HA54RCCS from a non-firearm into an unregistered machineguri.
ATFTEST
chain, a turnbuckle, and a bent piece of aluminum as shown in Photo 1:
PHOTO 1
1805
RIP
Page 2 of 3
PHOT02
construction.
containing five (5) rounds of7.62x54R ammunition.
At this point FTB Firearms Examining Officer (b) (6)
placed one hand on
ATF TEST FINDINGS

A non-firearm can be converted into an unregistered machine gun using simple
components.
1806
RIP
Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
I) ATF personnel have the ability and knowledge to construct (make) <2> an
unregistered machinegun from a non-fireann using simple components.
2) Once activated, the unregistered machinegun constructed by ATF personnel using
3) The HA54RCCS in its original configuration is anon-fireann 'and is incapable of
(b) (6)
Cell: (b) (6)
Reference:
The tenn "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
a single function of the trigger. The tenn shall also include the frame or receiver of any
(2) 26 U.S.C., 5845 (i) Make
The tenn "make", and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing
together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a fireann.
1807
RIP


Machinegun-
Registered ReceiverUpper Receiver-
Lower receiverControlled fire-
Uncontrolled fire-

recoil device.

1808
RIF
velocity gasses Therefore the sandbags need to be considered a part of the test
test fire the unit.
PKM). The fully automatic internal parts of the PKM machinegun could not be

1809
RIP
testing.
removed. A magazine was loaded with 3 rounds of ammunition; the bolt was
control MAC 10 upper machinegun receiver was attached to a semi automatic
rounds of ammunition; the bolt was pulled to the reward position and released.
The third test conducted at Historic arms shop utilized the control MAC 1O upper
and the bolt pulled to the rearward position and released. The upper fired the
the MAC 1O registered machinegun to fire 22 rim fire ammunition. The feed
1810
RIF
released. The bolt did not closed and the upper could not fire.
round.
Test Findings
control upper.
Per accepted scientific and engineering practipes as
gth
edition or numerous other scientific and engineering
receiver contains the recoil rod, allowing the upper to cycle and fire. At best this
(MAC 10 machinegun upper) and the Historic Arms unit.
receiver were added to the Historic Arms unit or the accepted MAC 10 upper
1811
RIF
collection of parts applied. in the same or similar fashion would induce full
If 1s this engineers opinion that 1f the A I F does not consider this
1812
RIF
Conclusion:
(b) (6)
P.E.

(b) (6)
Associate
, P .E.; C.B.S.I.

York, PA 17402
P. (b) (6)
F. (b) (6)
M. (b) (6)
mailto:(b) (6)
1813
RIP
2411 Rhyne Road

Dallas, NC 28034
704-263-5490
CMPArmory@msn.com
(b) (6)
Summary of
Nov. 2001
CMPArmory
Dallas, NC
Qualifications
[Owner]
Federal Firearms Manufacturing License (FFL Type 07)
Special Occupational Taxpayers Stamp(NFA MFGR 72)
Class 2 Firearms Manufacturer
Professional
Experience
Owner of CMP Annory

Manufacturer of semi-automatic firearms both pistol and
rifle as well as select fire weapons for law enforcement sales.
Repair and restoration of transferable firearms.
Conduct transfers of NFA firearms.
References
(b) (6)
of RPB in Atlanta
(b) (6)
of DPH Arms in Snowcamp NC
(b) (6)
of CJK Farms in Mount Olive NC
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
of B&B Firearms in NC
of Midwest Firearms in WI
1814
RIP
CMPArmorv
(b) (6)
14 June 2009
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Dear (b) (6)
On 10 June 2009 at the Coweta County Firing Range I inspected one Historic Arms 54RCCS. It is
my opinion that the device in question is just that a device. It is no more a firearm than the original
upper that comes on a MlO.
(ATF) any MlO upper in any caliber would fire as demonstrated. It is my opinion that trying to fire the
54RCCS in this manor is very dangerous. There is no way to safely control the device. If while trying to
could eject themselves from the upper device at high speed causing injury.
Voltor semiauto receiver and an original PKM GPM. The device in appearance as well measure is1
consist ent witJ:l a semi-auto not a fullauto. It is also my opinion that the device produced by Historic
Arms was derived from a semi-auto receiver.I The dimensions of the left rail are the same as a semi '
auto PKM but much larger than an automatic PKM GPM. The stamping itself is identical to a semi-auto
1815
RIP
did nothing.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
Owner, CMP Armory
2411 Rhyne Rd
Dallas, NC. 28034
(b) (6)
1816
RIP

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns and Explosives

Report of Technical Examination
244 Needy Road
Martinsburg, WV 25401
Phone: 304-260-1699
Fax:304-260-1701
To:
Date:
Special Agent (b) (6)

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns & Explosives
1801 Stanley Road, Suite 204
Greensboro, South Carolina 27407
(b) (6)
UI#: 763045-06-0078
RE: (b) (6)
FTB#: 2006-168-RDC
Type of Examination Requested:
Date Exhibits Received: 2/8/06

Delivered By: FedEx (b) (6)
Examination, Test, Classification
EXHIBITS:
I. Suspected incomplete RPO-type receiver, manufacturer unknown, no serial number.
PERTINENT AUTHORITY:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defines the term "firearm" to include:
" ... (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to
expel a projectile by the action ofan explosive; (BJ the frame or receiver ofany such weapon; (C) any
firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destn1ctive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm."
The National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a), defines "firearm" as:
" ... (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels ofless than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a
shotgun ifsuch weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of
less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a
weapon made from a rifle ifsuch weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a
barrel or barrels ofless than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a
machinegwz; (7) any silencer (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921); and (8) a destructive device. The term
''firearm" shall not include an antiquefireann or any device (other than a maclzinegun or destn1ctive
device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason ofthe date of its manufacture,
value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a
weapon."
ATF Fonn
3311.2
Revised June 2005
1817
RIP
SIA (b) (6)
763045-06-0078
2006-168-RDC
Page 2 of3
PERTINENT AUTHORITY (con.):

Finally, the NFA, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), defines "machinegun" as follows:
" ... 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 ofthe trigger. This term shall also include the
frame or receiver ofany such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or
combination ofparts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegr,m, and any
combination ofparts from which a machinegun can be assembled ifsuch parts are in the possession or
under the control of a person."
FINDINGS:
My examination of the submitted evidence revealed the following:
Exhibit 1 is a ferrous metal RPD-type receiver of unknown origin. This receiver appears to be a hybrid. It
has predominant characteristics of an RPD-type light machinegun. However, it has been designed to mate
with a trigger group and shoulder stock unlike that of a Soviet RPD or other RPD variant. The
configuration of the underside and rear areas suggest that the receiver was designed to mate with a modified
trigger group and shoulder stock from a Czech ZB30 or British Bren -type light machinegun. Further, the
presence of a cocking handle slot in the right receiver wall of Exhibit 1 is a characteristic uncommon to
RPD machineguns.
As received, I noted the following specifications of this item and the machining operations that had been
performed:
Length - approximately 14.067 inches (356mrn).

Height - approximately 2.310 inches (58mm).
Width - approximately 1.879 inches ( 48mrn).
Bolt channel.
Cocking handle channel - approximately 6.133 inches (154mrn) x .404 inch (lOmm).
Left receiver wall bolt carrier channel - approximately .178 inch (4.Smrn) x 13.3 73 inches (340mrn).
Feed ramp.
Bolt locking flap recesses.
Bolt rail.
Barrel opening.
Barrel retaining pin holes.
Top cover mounting block.
Top cover locking recess.
Sidewall relief cuts for top cover.
Relief cut for feed tray.
Trigger group channels (two), each approximately .160 inch (4mrn) x 6.690 inches (l 70rnm).
ATF Form
33 1I.2
Revised June 2005
1818
RIP
SIA (b) (6)
7 63045-06-007 8
2006-168-RDC
Page 3 of3
(Specifications and machining operations, con.)
Two oval-shaped holes near the receiver center, purpose unlmown, each approximately .642 inch
(16rnrn) x .176 inch (4.2rnrn).
Ejector dovetail channel.
Takedown pin holes.
Drum magazine mount holes (three), left receiver wall.
Further, my examination revealed that a Chinese, Type 56 (RPD copy) machinegun bolt carrier, which I
obtained from the ATF Firearms Technology Branch firearms reference collection, could not be installed
into this receiver. Installation was prevented by the existing left receiver wall bolt carrier channel being
undersized and the absence of a bolt carrier channel in the right receiver wall. Also, I could not fully seat
the RPD feed tray due to imperfections resulting from the machining processes.
I observed that the configuration of the receiver allows the RPD bolt, with locking flaps, and the top cover
assembly to be installed. Further, I found that the bolt traversed unimpeded within the receiver and the
locking flaps engaged the machined recesses in the receiver walls, locking the bolt forward, as originally
designed.
CONCLUSIONS:
The number and complexity of the operations that have been made to Exhibit I are sufficient to classify it as
a "firearm" as defined in 18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(3).
At this time, a definite classification of Exhibit 1 as a "firearm" that is subject to the purview of the NFA
cannot be made without any further supporting documentation or evidence.
Approved by:
(b) (6)
Firearms Enforcement Officer
Sterling Nixon
Attachments: PowerPoint presentation consisting of title page plus 26 photographs, one per page
ATFForm
33 11.2
Revised June 2005
1819
RIP

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
A7.62X54R CALIBER CONVERSION
SYSTEM MACHINEGUN, SERIAL NO. Vl,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO
CLAIMANT'S THIRD DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Pursuant to Rule 36 o f the Federal Rules of Civil Pr ocedure,
hereby
responds
to
Claimant
Historic
Arms'
Second
Dis c overy
INTERROGATORIES
1. In your amended responses to Claimant's First Discovery Requests
(RFA No.
12),
you stated that Defendant's registration has been
"frozen." Explain the
facts and circumstances surrounding this
action. In your answer, include an explanation of what it

means for a registration to be frozen,
was
frozen,
identify
the
person
or
the date the registration

persons
who
made
the
determination to freeze it, and the date the registrati o n

became unfrozen (if any) .
RESPONSE:
FTB Chief John Spencer notified the Acting NFA Branch
Chief Dawn Smith that a manufacturer's sample in FTB custody was
1822
RIF
improperly
registered
manufacturer.
as
short
barreled
rifle
by
the
The NFA Branch Chief directed that the registration
in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record be frozen

until the registration was corrected by the manufacturer.
is a
selection in
the NFRTR database
to
Frozen
temporarily halt any
further transfers of an NFA firearm for various reasons .
The
registration was frozen on 7-18-08 and remains as such.
2. Do you have a policy, practice or procedure, either formal or

informal, of returning to SOT manufacturers devices you determine
to be machine guns for registration, destruction, or the addition
of features so as to make such devices no longer be machine guns?
If not, did you formerly have such a policy, practice, or procedure
and under what circumstances did you discontinue it?
RESPONSE:
As
service
to
the
manufacturing
conununi ty,
FTB
evaluates firearm samples for classification as to whether they are

in fact firearms meeting the sporting criteria or if the firearm
would be
regulated by
the National
Firearms Act.
A domestic
manufacturer is not required to submit a firearm for evaluation but

may request a classification by ATF before going into production.
Generally
firearms
the
firearms
that
are
submitted
are
that are based on machinegun designs.
semiautomatic
Manufacturers
Occasionally send these devices to FTB when they are unsure of the
Page 2 of
1823
RIF
classification and rely on FTB for our classification.

Our evaluations
examinations,
3310.4b.
are written based on previous historical
SOPs both written and verbal,
and ATF directive
Your question addresses whether FTB has a
policy or
practice in which we send devices, which have been classified as

machineguns, back to manufacturers so they can add features so the
device will no longer be classified as a machinegun or to destroy
the device .
In accordance with our procedures, when we evaluate
a device and determine i t is a machinegun, we have allowed some

devices to be sent back to the manufacturer for modification.
When the device is classified as a
machinegun because i t
shoots automatically, we first notify the manufacturer that if they

want to get it back i t must first be registered on a Form 2 as a
machinegun.
If the design of the device is such that the receiver
is a machinegun then that receiver will be a machinegun and cannot

be
modified
to
semiautomatic
classification of machinegun.
receiver was
designed
as
firearm
and
removed
from
the
However, if we determine that the

semiautomatic
receiver
and shoots
automatically due to failure of some parts in the system this

firearm, once registered on a Form 2 the machinegun in question
could be returned to the manufacturer so that the offending feature
or features that allow i t to shoot automatically can be removed .
Page 3 of
1824
RIF
3.
If do
have
[sic),
or
formerly
had,
p olicy,
practice or
procedure as described in Interrogatory No . 2 above, explain why

you
did not employ such policy,
practi ce
or
procedure in
the
instant matter.
RESPONSE:
With respect to this case, Len Savage sent in a firearm based
on a PKM machinegun.
In the correspondence he submitted with the
Defendant Machinegun, Savage asked FTB to answer three questions:

Is
[the Defendant Machinegun)
designed
to
be
fired
from
the
shoulder; does [the Defendant Machinegun] have a barrel length of

less than 16 inches; and is [the Defendant Machinegun] designed for
exclusive use in a MAC type machinegun as a
caliber conversion
device?
In addition, Savage submitted a copy of a completed Form 2
that had previously been submitted to NFA requesting his device to
be registered as a short barreled rifle.
When FTB received the
Defendant
in
Machinegun,
it
was
evaluated
determined to be a machinegun receiver.
its
entirety
and
With minor adjustments
(spelled out in our classification letter) i t shot automatically.

The circumstance of this evaluation does not fit into our
policy of returning a machinegun to have the offending features
removed as i t was not properly registered as a machinegun .
Savage
was notified of our classification and given the opportunity (on

Page 4 of
1825
RIF
more than one occasion) to submit a properly completed Form 2 in

order to register the Defendant Machinegun as a machinegun, at
which point the Defendant Machinegun would have been returned to
him.
4 . Explain why you did not modify the information on the Form 2 in
the instant matter to reflect your conclusion that the Defendant is
a machine gun .
RESPONSE:
ATF occasionally updates
records
other
than
at
the
request of registrants such as IOI compliance inspection reports,

court orders, reports of loss/theft or abandonments to ATF.
In
this particular situation the Claimant refused to update the record

at ATF request and the record was frozen.
ATF will not change an
originally submitted ATF Form 2 since the undersigned is declaring

that they have examined the notice of firearms manufactured and to
the best of their knowledge and belief, i t is true, correct and
complete.
5. The testing procedures you provided in response to Claimant's

requests for production are unsigned, undated, and unnumbered. Is
this document a draft or is it in effect? If it is in effect, state
the date it was put into effect and identify the person who
authorized its implementation . If the document is not in effect, do
Page 5 of
1826
RIF
you have any testing procedures for classifying submissions to FTB

that are in effect?
RESPONSE: The testing procedure in your possession was reviewed and
signed by incoming Branch Chief John Spencer on October 1, 2007.
This
day of September, 2009.

DAVID E. NAHMIAS
Objections by:
G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
600 U.S. COURTHOUSE
(404)581-6036 - Office
Page 6 of
1827
RIF
VERIFICATION
I, John R. Spencer, Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch of

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, have read
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO CLAIMANT'S THIRD DISCOVERY REQUESTS and
state that its contents are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746,
declare under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

This
day of September, 2009.
John R. Spencer
Chief
Page 7 of
1828
RIF

ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO .
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
A7.62X54R CALIBER CONVERSION
SYSTEM@ MACHINEGUN, SERIAL NO. Vl,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
CLAIMANT'S SECOND DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civi l Procedure,

hereby
responds
to
Claimant
Historic
Arms'
Second
Discovery
INTERROGATORIES
1.
Identify
and
describe
all
the
differences
bet ween
t he
semiautomatic and machinegun version of the PK-type firearm.

RESPONSE : A semiautomatic PK type firearm differs from a PK type
machinequn in that the semiautomatic PK type firearm utilizes a
striker-fired bolt that fires from the closed bolt .
Additionally,
the semiautomatic PK type firearm's receiver has widened bolt-guide

rails and a machinequn bolt blocking bar which are not present on
a PK type machinequn receiver.
2. Explain how you came to the conclusion that the PK receiver used
by Claimant in the manufacture of the Defendant came from a PK
1829
RIF
~.
machinegun and not a semiautomatic version of a PK-type firearm. In

your
response,
include
discussion
of
how
you
applied
the
differences you identified in response to Interrogatory # 1 above

to make your conclusion.
RESPONSE:
ATF has made no definitive statements regarding the
origin of the PK type machinegun receiver used in the assembly of

the Defendant Firearm.
The Defendant Firearm (as submitted by
Claimant for evaluation) is assembled with a machinegun receiver.

It was not known at the time of the initial. evaluation if the
receiver was originally manufactured as a machinegun or was a
semiautomatic PK type receiver that was modified into a PK type
machinegun receiver prior to the initial evaluation .
Subsequent
statements submitted by Claimant and subsequent examinations show

that Claimant modified a semiautomatic PK type receiver into a PK
type
machinequn.
The
semiautomatic
features
described
Interrogatory No. 2, were removed or defeated by Claimant.
in
These
features were specified by ATF and designed by the semiautomatic

receivers' original manufacturer to prevent either a) installation
of unmodified machinegun fire-control components and/orb) function
of modified open-bolt machinegun fire-control. components in an
unmodified semiautomatic receiver.
3. Identify the person or persons providing the s ubstantive
information responsive t o the se discovery r equests.
Page 2 of
1830
RIF
RESPONSE: Firearms Enforcement Officer Max M. Kingery, Assistant

Chief, Firearms Technology Branch Richard Vasquez, Chief,
Firearms Technology Branch John Spencer.
4. Identify what provision(s) of Chapter 53 of Title 26 of the

U.S. Code you allege were violated giving rise to the seizure and
forfeiture of the Defendant. In your response, for each and every
element of such provision(s) you believe was (or were) violated,
identify the person(s) or entity(ies) responsible for the
violation(s) and what conduct of such person(s) or entity(ies)
met the requirements of such elements.
RESPONSE: The relevant statute is set forth below:
26
a.
u.s .c .
5841
Description.
Failure
of manufacturer
to
register
the
manufacture of a firearm as required by 26 U.S.C. section 5841 and

26 C.F.R. section 479.103.
b.
Elements.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Manufacturer was qualified under 26 U.S.C. section 5801

Manufacturer made firearm.
Date of manufacture.
Place of manufacture.
Date manufacturer required to register such manufacture.
Failure to register such manufacture .
Plaintiff alleges that Claimant Historic Arms, LLC, a licensed

manufacturer under tha Gun Control Act
Code, Chapter 44)
(Title 18,United States
and a Special Occupational Taxpayer under the
Page 3 of
1831
RIF
National Firearms Act (Title 26, United States Code, Chapter 53),
acting by and through Lennis Savage, manufactured a machinegun, the
Defendant Firearm, as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845, on
or about April 21, 2008 at its licensed premises at 1486 Cherry
Road,
Franklin, Georgia,
Georgia.
in the Northern Judicial District of
Claimant failed
to properly register the Defendant
Firearm as a machinegun as required by 26 U.S.C. 584l(b) when it

filed an ATF Form 2 on April 21, 2008 in an attempt to register the
Defendant Firearm as a short-barreled rifle, and later refused to
amend the ATF Form 2 to reflect the proper classification of the
Defendant Firearm as
a machinegun.
The refore,
the Defandan t
Firearm is an unregistered machinegun that is not registered to the

Claimant.
As an unregistered machinagun, the Defendant Firearm is a
"firearm involved in [a] violation of the provisions of [Title 26,
Chapter 53)" and subject to forfeiture under 26 U.S.C. 5872(a).
Further, under 26 U.S. C.
5861 (d),
it would be unlawful for
Historic Arms or any other person to possess
or receive the
Defendant Firearm because it is an unregistered machinegun.

5. Explain any denials to the Requests for Admissions below .
Page 4 of
1832
RIF

1. Admit that if you installed the sample MAC upper shown in the
Letter into the MAC frame
used
in
your
April 15, 2009 test-
firevideo, with the fire control components removed (as in your

test-fire video),
it would be expected to function in the same
manner as the Defendant, i . e., it would discharge a projectile by

means of an explosive and it would fire automatically more than one
shot with a single function of the trigger.
RESPONSE : ADMITTED .
The sample MAC machinegun upper, shown in the
Latter, will discharge a projectile by means of an explosive and

will fire automatically more than one shot with a single function
of a trigger when attached to the MAC-type machinegun frame used in
the April 15, 2009 test-fire video.
2. Admit that if the chain, plate, and duct tape you installed on
the Defendant were installed on the sample MAC upper shown in the
Letter, it would be expected to discharge a projectile by means of
an explosive, and admit further that it would fire automatically
more than one shot with a single function of the trigger if an
ammunition feeding device were
in place to
feed a
second or
additional round of ammunition.

RESPONSE: ADMITTED as to part one (ending in" . . . an explosive").
DENIED as to part two.
The sample MAC upper does not have the
ability to accept and function with an ammunition feeding device

unless it is extensively modified or attached to a MAC frame. Only
Page 5 of
1833
RIF
if it is modified to accept an ammunition feeding device and fitted

with a chain, plate, tensioning bolt and duct tape to capture the
recoil spring would it fi r e automatically .
3.
Admit
that
Admission
the
assembled device
above
would
de scribed in
constitute
GCA
Request
firearm
and
for
a
machinegun .
RESPONSE: Objection, as to the form of the question, as multiple
firearms
and firearm components
Admission No. 2.
to
mean
the
are described in Request for
Objection, Claimant has defined the term "device"

Defendant
Firearm
for
purposes
of
Discovery.
Accordingly, this request is both vague and confusing and Plaintiff

cannot Admit or Deny this statement as written.
4. Ad.mi t
you do not regulate the individual i terns described in
Request for Admission # 2 above in any way .

RESPONSE: Objection to the form of the question, as it is vague as
to what individual items it refers to.
ADMITTED IN PART, assuming
the "individual items" referred to are the chain, plate, tensioning

bolt or duct tape, as they would not be regulated by ATF unless
they were intended specifically for use in a firearm.
referring to a MAC-type upper,
as that is a
DENIED, if
firearm part and
therefore regulated under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22

O.S.C. Chapter 2778.
5. Admit that Claimant is presently the true owner of Defendant,
Page 6 of
1834
RIF
.
and that if a forfeiture is not ordered in this case, Claimant's
claim for Defendant is sufficient for Defendant to be returned to
Claimant.
RESPONSE: ADMITTED in that Plaintiff admits that Claimant is the
owner of the Defendant Firearm.
Plaintiff objects to any request
for information regarding a future action Plaintiff may take as it

is outside the scope of discovery, however Plaintiff will abide by
any lawful order issued by the Court.
This
day of August, 2009.

DAVID E. NAHMIAS
Objections by:
G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
600 U.S. COURTHOUSE
(404)581-6036 - Office
Page 7 of
1835
RIF
------
..
VERIFICATION
I, Max M. Kingery, a Firearms Enforcement Officer with the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, have read
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO CLAIMANT'S SECOND DISCOVERY
REQUESTS and state that its contents are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief .

Pursuant to 28
u.s.c.
1746, I declare under penalty of

This
,,
~~
3
Max M. King
Firearms Enrorcement Officer
Page 8 of
1836
RIF
.. ..
ATLANTA DIVISION
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
1:09-CV-0192-GET
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES TO
CLAIMANT'S FIRST DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Pursuant to Rule 36 o f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the United States o f America, Plaintiff in the above-styled case,
hereby responds to Claimant Historic Arms' First Discovery Requests
as follows:
INTERROGATORIES
1. State the "criteria and methods used to class ify your firearm as
a machine gun" as referred to in your letter o f July 11, 2008.
RESPONSE: The criteria and methods used to classify the Defendant
Firearm
as
machinegun
are
described
evaluation letter (2008-472-MMK).
and
depicted
in
the
See Attachment 1.
2. Identify all design features of a machine gun exhibited by this

device as referred to in paragraph 2 of your letter of July 11,
2008.
RESPONSE: The Defendant Firearm contains a frame or receiver of a
PK
type
machinegun.
Additionally,
1837
the
Defendant
Firearm
RIF
incorporates
the
following
design
features
commonly found
on
machinequns : open bolt operation and a fixed firing pin.
3. Describe how the device "would be readily restorable to s hoot

automatically as a machine gun" as referred to in the second
paragraph of your letter of July 11, 2008 .
RESPONSE :
To construct the Defendant Firearm, a semiautomatic PK
type receiver was modified by removing the machinegun bolt blocking

bar that is required in a semiautomatic PK type receiver to prevent
installation of PK machinegun parts and automatic fire.
The act of
removing the machinequn bolt blocking bar created a machinegun as

defined by 26 U.S. C. 5845 (d) .
Since the ability of the Defendant
Firearm to fire was prevented due to the lack of a rear trunnion

(back plate); simply trapping the recoil spring within the receiver
returned the Defendant Firearm to firing condition.
4. Describe all alterations made to the device prio r to or during

testing and describe the reasons for such alte r ati ons.
RESPONSE:
All
alterations
made
to
the
Defendant
Firearm
are
described and depicted in Attachment 1.
5. Describe why you removed the factory trigger prio r to testing of

the dev ice .
RESPONSE:
ATF
did not
remove
any
trigger
from
the
Defendant
Firearm.
6. Identify all cases where ATF Firearms Enforceme nt Off icer Max
Page 2 of
1838
14
RIF
..
Kingery has testified in court or in deposition.
RESPONSE : See Attachment 2.
7. Identify all experts you intend to call at the trial of t his
action and provide the information about those experts, according
to Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civ il Procedure.
RESPONSE : Firearms Enforcement Officer ("FEO") Max M. Kingery and
Assistant Chief, Firearms Technology Branch Richard Vasquez.
8 . Identify all licenses held by Len Savage issued by ATF.
RESPONSE: There are no Federal Firearms Licenses issued to Len

Savage .
Mr. Savage is a responsible person on a Federal Firearms
License issued to Historic Arms LLC (1-58-149-07-lG-01270).

9.
For each Request for Admission that is denied,
prov ide an
explanation of the denial.

10. Identify every document, record, memorandum, a nd correspondence
in your possession or control relating to t he HA54RCCS and your
evaluation of it.
11. Identify each person involved in your test ing of the HA54RCCS
and what role each person pla yed in the testing .
RESPONSE: The term "testing" is undefined, but for purposes of the
classification of
the Defendant Firearm as
a machinegun,
the
"testing" was performed by Firearms Enforcement Officer Max M.

Kingery.
Page 3 of
1839
14
RIF
..
12 . Identify each person involved in your determination that the
HA54RCCS is a machinegun, and what role each person played in the
determination.
RESPONSE: FEO Max M. Kingery examined and classified the Defendant
Assistant Chief,
Firearm.
Firearms Technology Branch Richard
Vasquez reviewed the classification as FEO Kingery's first line

supervisor.
reviewed
Chief,
the
Firearms
classification
Technology Branch John

as
FEO
Kingery's
Spencer
second
line
supervisor .
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
1. Provide copies of all testing procedures a nd manua l s used to
examine the defendant device .
determine that the device was a machine gun.
RESPONSE: See Attachment 1 and Attachment 4.
3.
Provide
copies
of all
c r i t eria
used by
the
Plaintiff
to
determine that the Def endant device was a machine gun.

RESPONSE : See Attachment 1.
4. Provide copies of all wor king notes, in wh atever form originally
documented(written, typed, computer generated, video, etc.) during
testing o f the device .
RESPONSE: No such documents exist.
5 . Prov ide copies of all ATF documents that refer or relate to
Page 4 of
1840
14
RIF
..
Historic Arms, Inc . or Len Savage.
RESPONSE : Objection, this request is over broad and potentially not
relevant .
Plaintiff has self-limited its response to include only
documents that refer to or relate to "Historic Arms, LLC," "Len

Savage, " and the Defendant Firearm that were created from April 2 0 ,
2008 (the date on which the Defendant Firearm was submitted to ATF)
until present.
Documents that are not withheld due to privilege
are provided in Attachment 3 .

6. Provide copies of all ATF documents which r efer or relate to t he
subject device.
RESPONSE : See Attachments 1, 3 and 6 .
7 . Provide copies of all video recordings or depictions o f the
testing of the device .
RESPONSE: DVDs of the test firing of the Defendant Firearm on April
15, 2009 were previously released to Claimant's counsel.
DVDs of
the examination and test firing of the Defendant Firearm on June

10, 2009 are attached as Attachment 5 .
8. Provide copies of all ATF testing of the Ant hony Smith Mll / 9
upper together with all documents related to t he testing o f that
device .
information whose release is prohibited by 26 O. S. C.
Additionally ,
this
material
is
not
Page 5 of
1841
6103 .
relevant and may contain
14
RIF
..
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U. S . C.
1905.

9. Provide copies of all ATF testing of the Calico Upper f or the
MAC 10 and M-11 series together with all documents relate d to the
testing of that device .
Additionally,
this
material
is
not
relevant
and may
6103.
contain
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U.S . C.
1905 .

10 . Prov ide copies of all ATF testing of the Flemming t ype 22 Upper
for the MAC 10 and M-11 series together with all documents related
to the testing of that device.
Additionally,
this material
is
not
relevant
and may
6103.
contain
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U. S. C.
1905 .

Page 6 of
1842
14
RIF

11. Provide copies of all ATF testing of the Sto ney Creek Upper for
the MAC 10 and M-11 series together with all docume nts re l ated to
the testing of that device.
information whose release
Additionally,
this
is prohibited by 26 U.S.C.
material
is
not
relevant
and
may
6103.
contain
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U.S. C .
1905.

12 .
Produce
RESPONSE :
all
ATF
Objection,
Safety
this
Protocols
request
documents that are not relevant.

to
include
testing procedures
is
and
testing
procedures .
over broad and requests
ATF has self limited this request

that were used
to
evaluate
the
Defendant Firearm and previously produced as Attachment 4.

13. Produce all proposed procedures referred t o in :
a. Letter from Lewis P. Raden dated March 2, 2 00 6;
b. Congressional Research Service memorandum dated October 19 , 2005
and statements
supplied b y
ATF
July
2005,
Sep tember
2005
and
October 2005.
RESPONSE: Objection, this request is not relevant as it pertains to
documents written over two years prior to Claimant's submission of
Page 7 of
1843
14
RIF
the Oefendant Firearm for classification which is the crux of this

case.
Furthermore, this request is vague as Plaintiff is unable to
determine what Claimant is referring to when it requests "proposed

procedures."
Finally, Plaintiff is not the custodian of some or
all of the documents sought.

14 . Produce all ATF Documents which refer t o a shoestring as being
classified (or not classified) as a machine gun.
RESPONSE:
Objection, this material may contain confidential tax

Additionally,
this material
is
not relevant
and may
6103.
contain
proprietary information whose disclosure is prohibited by 18 U.S. C.
1905.

15. Provide copies of all documents reviewed or prepared by any
expert that you have consulted or that you intend on testifying at
the trial or deposition in this matter.
Claimant or have been produced in Attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, and S.
16.
Provide copies of all documents that you intend to use or
introduce at any deposition or at trial of this action.

RESPONSE : These documents have either been previously produced to
Page B of
1844
14
RIF
17. Produce for inspection and testing, pursuant to prior agreement

of counsel,
testing
of
the device
the
and additional materials
device,
including
but
not
used
limited
to
in
your
chain,
tensioning bolts, plate, duct tape, and tie wraps. Such production
shall take place at 1 p.m. on June 10, 2009 at the Coweta County
(Georgia)
Sheriff's Department range.
accompanied
by
ATF
personnel
Such production shall be
familiar
with
the
testing
you
performed on the device who can demonstrate the testing performed.

RESPONSE: This request was comp1ied with in fu1l on June 10, 2009.
18.
Produce every item identified in response to Interrogatory
Number 10 above.
1. Admit that the determination of whether a device is a machinegun

is
not
based
on
whether
the
device
contains
parts
from
machinegun.
RESPONSE:
OBJECTION.
defined by C1aimant;
"parts" is defined.
a
device
is
The term "parts"
has not been properly
Plaintiff's response varies based on how
ADMITTED in part : the determination of whether
machinegun
is
based upon
the
characteristics,
features, design, and function i t incorporates with respect to 26

U.S. C. 5845 (b) . DENIED in part: if the firearm contains the frame
or receiver of a machinegun, it is a machinegun as defined by 26
u.s.c.
5845(b).
Page 9 of
1845
14
RIF
2.
Admit
that
HA54RCCS
is
the
not
presence
of
determinative
parts
of
from
whether
machineguns
the
on
HA54RCCS
the
is
machinegun.
RESPONSE :
DENIED.
The Defendant Firearm incorporates the frame or
receiver of a machinegun; as such, i t is a "machinegun" as defined

in 26
3.
o.s.c.
Admit
5845(b) .
that
many
semiautomatic
(non-NFA)
f i rearms
contain
machinegun parts.
RESPONSE : ADMITTED .
Semiautomatic and fully automatic firearms may
utilize common parts such as stocks, barrels,

sights,
grips,
clips,
and other parts
springs,
that do
levers,
not facilitate
automatic fire.
4. Admit that you converted the HA54RCCS into a machinegun .
RESPONSE: DENIED.
contains
the
The Defendant Firearm is a machinegun as it
frame
or
receiver
of
PK-type
machinegun.
Additionally,
the Defendant Firearm is a machinegun as it was
designed
shoot,
to
or
can
be
readily
restored
to
shoot,

single function of the trigger.
5. Admit that you employed a "collection of parts " that, together
with the HA54RCCS, comprise a machine gun.
RESPONSE :
DENIED.
contains a frame or receiver of a PK type machinegun.
Page 10 of
1846
The simple
14
RIF
addition of parts to capture the recoil spring of the Defendant

Firearm inside its receiver returned the Defendant Firearm to a
firing condition.
6. Admit that the HA54RCCS is not a machinegun.

RESPONSE : DENIED.
contains
the
The Defendant Firearm is a machinegun as it
frame
or
receiver
of
PK-type
machinegun .
Additionally,
designed
shoot,
to
or
can
be
readily
restored
to
shoot,

single function of the trigger
7. Admit that, without modification, the HA54 RCCS as submitted to

FTB will not automaticall y fire more than one shot with a single
function of the trigger .
RESPONSE: ADMITTED that the Defendant Firearm, as submitted, will
not automatically fire more than one shot with a single function of
the trigger.
However, the Defendant Firearm is a machinegun as
defined by 26 O.S.C. 5845{b) because it is designed to shoot, or

can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot,
In
addition, the Defendant Firearm is a machinegun as i t contains the

frame or receiver of a machinegun.
8. Admit that the HA54RCCS is what is commonly referred to as a MAC

'upper.'
Page 11 of
1847
14
RIF
RESPONSE: DENIED. The Defendant Firearm is a PK-type machinegun

receiver
that
has been modified by
(among other
things)
the
addition of a portion of a MAC-type upper.
9. Admit that a MAC upper is not a machine gun.

RESPONSE:
ADMITTED,
an
unmodified
MAC-type
upper
is
not
machinegun.
10 . Admit that the HA54RCCS will not automatically fire more than
one shot with a single function of the trigger when installed on a
semiautomatic MAC lower.
RESPONSE: DENIED, for the following reasons:
a.
The Defendant Firearm is capable of firing automatically when
attached to a semiautomatic MAC-type receiver.

b.
It is not required that the Defendant Firearm be attached to a
second receiver in order to restore i t to a firing condition.
11. Admit that FTB Chief John Spencer advised Claimant to r egister
the HA54RCCS as a short barreled rifle .
RESPONSE: DENIED. Claimant submitted the Defendant Firearm to the
ATF' s
Firearms
Claimant
Technology Branch
submitted
documentation
("FTB")
for evaluation after
attempting
to
register
the
Defendant Firearm as a "short barreled rifle" to ATF' s National

Firearms Act ("NFA") Branch.
Defendant Firearm,
Following FTB's evaluation of the
the Defendant Firearm was
"machinegun" as defined by 26 O.S.C. 5845(b).
Page 12 of
1848
classified as
Claimant and NFA
14
RIF
Branch were notified of FTB' s classification and Claimant was

provided with an opportunity to amend its registration application
and refused.
12. Admit that you accepted the registration of t he HA54RCCS as a
short barreled rifle.
RESPONSE : DENIED.
Claimant filed an ATF Form 2 to register the
Defendant Firearm before Claimant submitted the Defendant Firearm

for classification.
Since Plaintiff relies upon manufacturers of
firearms to properly classify and register their firearms, the NFA

Branch processed the ATF Form 2 assuming Claimant had properly
identified the Defendant Firearm.
Upon the subsequent examination
and classification by the FTB, the Defendant Firearm' s registration

was frozen allowing for Claimant to amend its ATF Form 2 to reflect
the Defendant Firearm's status as a machinegun.
This

DAVID E . NAHMIAS
Objections by:
G. JEFFREY VISCOMI
600 U.S . COURTHOUSE
75 SPRING STREET, S. W.
(404)581-6036 - Office
Page 13 of
1849
14
RIF
VERIFICATION
I, Max M. Kingery, a Firearms Enforcement Officer with the

PLAINTIFF'S
AMENDED
Firearms and Explosives,
RESPONSES
TO
CLAIMANT'S
FIRST
have read
DISCOVERY
REQUESTS and state that its contents are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

Pursuant to 28 U. S . C. 1746,
declare under penalty of

This
3rJ day of August, 2009 .
Firearms En rcement Officer

Page 14 of
1850
14
RIF
.,.
..
~
lEN SAVAGE. PRESIDENT
t1i$forie T{rm1 b.b.C.
~.:.
706-675-0287 Home
706-675-0818 Shop
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-0192-GET
TEST AND EXAM OF JUNE I0, 2009

OBSERVATIONS:
Fin:arms Examining Officer (b) (6)

installed A1Fs "collection of parts" on the
Historical Anns 54R Caliber Conversion System [HA54RCCS]. These parts consisted of chain,
aluminum plate and turnbuckle or tension bolt After installation, he loaded HAS4RCCS, and
A TF damaged HA54RCCS in previous testing by breaking the shell deflector (which allows the
system, when correctly assembled using a standmd MAC machine gun receiver to be safely
FEO (b) (6) , whose photographs show that the tension bolt was previously attached to the shell
deflector. ATF did not supply documentation explaining how the damage to the shell deflector
occurred.
A TF also presented the sample MAC type upper used in their analysis as well as the MAC
''receiver" with fire control components removed that ATF used in its April l 5, 2009, test video.
The MAC ~eiver" was a machinegun made by Military Armament Corp.
The significance that the "receiver" ATF used is a machincgun receiver is the fact that ATF
installed the HA54RCCS into a machinegun, and that the machinegun receiver functioned as a
macbinegun. Did the ATF expect a different result? What other result is possible? When asked
what ATFs presented "sample MAC I 0 upper" would do when installed in the same machinegun
receiver, ATF refused to answer. and requested the question be submitted in writing.
I attempted to test fire the HA54RCCS without ATF's "collection of parts". I placed a loaded
belt in HA54RCCS with three rounds of ammunition, and attempted to fire it. HA54RCCS did
not feed a single round, or fire a single round, of ammunition.
, I also test fired HA54RCCS as designed; that is, to be installed into an existing MAC
rnacbinegun whose receiver had not been modified. After checking the completed assembly and
1851
RIP
test firing three rounds to set and adjust the gas regulator, I fired eight rounds in two-round bursts
x 54R ammunition.
At the conclusion of the test and examinations at the Coweta County Sheriffs Training Range.
further tests.
TEST AND EXAM OF JUNE 10, 2009

HISTORIC ARMS LLC TEST RANGE
08SERVAIIONS:
Defense experts provided a "sample MAC 10 type upper''. The "sample MAC 10 type upper" is
an example of a MAC 10 upper that is designed to be used with a MAC l 0 machinegun.
Defense experts installed ATF's "collection of parts.'' After some experimentation, the completed
assembly was then loaded with a 45 ACP rotmd and fired in the manner identical to how ATF
tested HA54RCCS. The result of this test was that the sample MAC 10 type upper fired, i.e.,
Defense experts installed the sample MAC 10 type upper into a semiautomatic MAC receiver
stripped of fire control components [to replicate ATf's April 15, 2009 test], and test fired the
assembled firearm. The result was that the sample MAC 10 type upper, installed on any type
MAC receiver stripped of fire control components, fired more than one shot in the same exact
manner as HAS4RCCS.
upper. The Flem.ming ''upper" is marketed as a caliber conversion system for MAC type
machineguns since 1993. The result of test firing the Flemming "upper" after installing ATF's
collection of parts was identical to the result oftest firing HAS4RCCS after installing ATF's
In other words, the results were identical to the Historic Arms 54R Caliber Conversion System in
that the Flemming unit fucd all rounds supplied ammunition upon release of the cocking handle
1852
RIF
CONCLUSIONS:
One where a "collection of parts" were applied [i.e. chain, aluminum plate and turnbuckle or
tension bolt] to HA54RCCS. Testing by the defense revealed that this tests turns all MAC type
uppers into fueanns, and on other commercially available "uppers" or "caliber conversion
systems" into a machinegwi, although such machineguns are unsafe and impractical because
The second test conducted by A1F [April 15, 2009] was to install HA54RCCS into a
machinegun receiver from which the tire control components were removed. ATF stated the
reason was that the receiver contains the recoil system. ATF did not state the obvious; namely,
all MAC type firearms work in that fashion. Importantly_ ATF's presented "sample MAC upper'
fired identically to the HA54RCCS when the same test was applied.
ATF failed to recognize that the HA54RCCS was made from portions of a semiautomatic
receiver. The correspondence of June 10, 2008, identifies and documents "machinegun receiver"
as the term ATF used when describing the parts that were used to construct HA54RCCS. Pages
4 and 5 of the June 10, 2008, correspondence documents that the parts Historic Arms LLC used
a~ from a semiautomatic receiver: "The left side bolt guide rail was widened in a manner to
In ATF's mistaken attempt to purportedly "readily restore" the portions of the semiautomatic
could be assembled into a macbincgun. If applied to other MAC type uppers or caliber
conversion systems [that ATF has already declared not to be firearms], ATF's collection of parts
causes MAC type uppers or caliber conversion systems to fire automatically (the same result as
According to page 100 of the trial transcript, his testimony states:
"And it can k a Plllt sok!y intpule4 - solely daiagl lllUI inlelukd t.o cgntlO't" finarm inlo
a llUIChin< fUll Pl' a combjngljon oLJuuts that m dpigMd to conm1 a fireami into a
machine pn. ifthose parts are undq !he control or possession ofa Jlerson."
"A. An4 those earls tocethel' hqt bv themse/m wou/4 be a maehine gun.
0. Okqr.
A. llmuqe thg would bt a combinatian ofparts from whiclt a maehine Giii couJ4 be
cmdizurd.,,
1853
RIP
CMPArmory
(b) (6)
14June 2009
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Dear (b) (6)
On 10 June 2009 at the Coweta County Firing Range I Inspected one Historic Arms 54RCCS. It Is
my opinion that the device In question Is just that a device. It is no more a firearm than the original
upper that comes on a MlO.
(ATF) any MlO upper In any caliber would fire as demonstrated. It is my opinion that trying to fire the
54RCCS In this manor is very dangerous. There is no way to safely control the device. If while trying to
could eject themselves from the upper device at high speed causing Injury.
Voltor semi-auto receiver and an original PKM GPM. The device in appearance as well measure Is
consistent w ith a semi-auto not a full-auto. It is also my opinion that the device produced by Historic
Arms was derived from a semiauto receiver. The dimensions of the left rail are the same as a semi
auto PKM but much larger than an automatic PKM GPM. The stamping itself Is identical to a semi-auto.
1854
RIP
did nothing.
Sincerely,
(b) (6)
Owner, CMP Armory
2411 Rhyne Rd
Dallas, NC. 28034
(b) (6)
1855
RIP
..r.
My chief area of expertise is the history and the development of submachine

guns. My study of this narrowly defined subject has been quite thorough.
During the last fifteen years I have researched, written and had published
more than one-hundred and fifty magazine articles on this subject. My
research for these magazine articles averaged about sixty hours per article, a
total of approximately nine thousand hours.
Len Savage, of Historic Arms LLC, asked me to observe a test that was
conducted on June 9, 2009 at the Coweta County (Georgia) Training range
by Firearms Examining Officer (FEO) (b) (6)
an employee of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Firearm Technical
Branch (BATF&E FTB). The purpose of the test was to enable the
BATF&E FTB technician to demonstrate that the Historic Arms
HAS4RCCS caliber conversion device for a MAC 10 could be made to fire
when it is not attached to a registered MAClO receiver.
My evaluation of the BATF&E FTB test was based upon both my
knowledge of how submachine guns function and of how developmental
improvements led to better, less expensive and more compact models of
them.
(b) (6)
1856
RIP
...
..
2
Historic Anns LLC designed and manufactured a prototype caliber

conversion device for a MACI 0 submachine gun. The model number
"HA54RCCS" was assigned to this device.
Before submitting the MAC 10 caliber conversion device to the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Fireanns Technical Branch
.
.
~
_,._..---.TE
or e
e
. ~_.
the MAClO caliber conversion dev
a firearm. That designation was incorrect smce
caliber conversion device could not fire even one shot unless it was first
attached to a registered MACI 0 receiver. In a spirit of cooperation however,
Len Savage agreed to the BATF&E FTB's request. The prototype device
was then sent to the BATF&E FTB for evaluation.
Though the device, as submitted, was unable to tire a single round, the
BATF&E FTB declared that it was unregistered machine gun. Historic
Arms LLC disputed this assertion and asked to have the test repeated while
fexperts observed. The BATF&E FfB agreed.
The test was repeated on June 9, 2009 at the Coweta County (Georgia)
Training range. lt was conducted by Firearms Examining Officer (FEO)
(b) (6)
At the request of Historic Arms LLC, I observed the
repeated test.
The purpose of the test was to allow the BATF&E FTB's technician to
demonstrate that the Historic Arms HA54RCCS caliber conversion device
could be made to fire when it is not attached, to a registered MAC 10
receiver. (b) (6)
, the FEO, was able to make the HA54RCCS caliber
conversion device fire repeatedly. After observing the test, I concluded that
although the BATF&E F1B technician did make the HA54RCCS caliber
conversion device fire, the test was seriously and obviously flawed. A
review of historical information of the development of submachine guns will
make clear how the BATF&E FTB test was flawed.
The importance of correctly identifying the portion of a firearm that is
designated as its receiver must be emphasized. The firearm's receiver is the
controlled part of the firearm. To buy just the receiver of a firearm from a
federally licensed dealer, it is necessary for the buyer to complete a Federal
Form 4473 and then pass a background check The parts that are attached
to the receiver, however, are just that, parts. The non-receiver parts are
1857
RIP
...
.
3
unregulated. Anyone can buy non-receiver spare parts without either

completing a Form 4473 or passing a background check.. Many firearm
owners buy spare parts in anticipation of wearing out a part or losing one. In
the same manner, by adding new parts, it is both simple and lawful in most
cases to change the caliber of a firearm. Changing calibers makes any
fireann more versatile. One of the more frequently encountered firearm
caliber changes allows a centerfire firearm to operate while using much less
expensive .22 Long Rifle rimfire ammunition. The use of this less costly
ammunition for practice helps to promote both proficiency and safety.
The combination of parts that constitute a firearm receiver or frame is not
always clear. A starting point is ATF Publication 5300.4, titled Federal
Firearms Reference Guide 2005. The guide defines "Firearm frame or
receiver'' as, "That part of a firearm which provides a housing for the
hammer, bolt or breechbl~ and firing mechanism, and which is usually
threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."
Some firearm receivers fit the Federal Firearms Reference Guide definition
very well. One of the best examples of a firearm receiver that fits the Federal
Firearms Reference Guide definition is a British Lanchester submachine
gun. It contains every Federal Firearms Reference Guide defined part plus
the trigger.
This British Lanchester receiver contains every Federal Firearms Reference

Guide defined part.
Though not mentioned by name in the Federal Firearms Reference Guide's
definition of a receiver, the Lanchester receiver also contains the trigger, the
sear, the disconnector, the :fire-control selector, the operating-spring and the
receiver's removable end-cap. The end-cap captures the operating-spring as
it is compressed by the rearward traveling bolt. Containing both an
1858
RIF
operating-spring and a receiver end-cap, a Lanchester machine carbine

receiver is fully :functional after it has been removed from its stock.
A Gennan MP18 submachine gun is ahnost as good an example as the
British Lanchester. Except for its simple trigger, which is located within the
stock, the MP18 receiver is functionally identical to the Lanchester's. Like
the Lanchester, an MP 18 receiver is fully functional after it has been
removed from its stock. To fire, one only needs to press the trigger-transfer
bar.
...,
L~~:-transfer
~-
bar
The German MP18 was the first practical pistol-caliber machine gun.
Except for the trigger, its receiver contains every Federal Firearms
Reference Guide defined receiver part. The trigger is located in the lower
frame, which is attached to the stock. The 'MP18 receiver can be removed
from its stock and fired by pressing forward on the trigger-transfer bar.
Detennining which portion of a fireann constitutes its receiver becomes

more complicated when examining the 1921 Model of the US Thompson
Submachine Gun.
The Thompson's barrel is attached to a rectangular steel block. The interior
of this block is hollow and it contains the bolt and the operating-spring.
Unlike the British Lanchester and the German MP 18 though, the Thompson
receiver does not have a removable end-cap to capture the operating-spring.
Instead, the Thompson's receiver is closed at the rear end, thus functioning
as an integral end-cap to capture the operating-spring. Moreover, the
Thompson's trigger, sear, fire-control selector and safety, are not integral
with the receiver. They are contained in a removable lower frame. In spite
of the Thompson receiver's lack of a trigger and other fire-control parts, the
BATF&E has correctly identified Thompson's upper frame as its receiver.
1859
RIF
5
When examined, this islogical. The reason is clear. A Thompson receiver,
without the addition of any other parts can be made to fire at leut one round.
The assertion in the paragraph above can be demonstrated by conducting a
simple, but dangerous, test Remove the Thompson's lower frame, which
selector. While holding the Thompson receiver up side down, grasp the
cocking knob retract the bolt. While holding the bolt retracted, insert a
loaded drum magazine into the receiver. Hold the magazine tightly and
release the bolt One shot, and maybe more, will be fired.
Tue receiver of a 1921 Thompson Submachine Gun is depicted at the top of

this illustration. It contains the barrel, the bolt and the operating-spring.
Tue rear wall of the receiver captures the operating-spring. The lower frame
selector. Without its lower frame attached, the receiver can be made to fire.
An Israeli Uzi submachine gun operates much like a Thompson Submachine

Gun. Like the Thompson's receiver, an Uzi receiver contains the barrel, the
bolt and the operating-spring. Like the Thompson receiver, the Uzi receiver
is closed at the rear end, thus capturing the operating-spring. Also like the
1860
RIF
Thompson, an Uzi's lower frame contains the trigger, the sear, the
disconnector, the safety and the fire-control selector. Finally, Jike the
Thompson receiver, the Uzi receiver, without its lower frame, can be made
to fire one round. The procedure to demonstrate this is slightly different
though since without using its lower frame a magazine cannot be attached to
an Uzi receiver.
An Uzi receiver contains the barrel, the bolt and the operating-spring. The
Uzi receiver is closed at the rear end. Thus, it captures the operating-spring.
The Uzi's lower frame contains the trigger, the sear, the disconnector, the
safety and the fire-control selector. Even without the lower frame attached,
an Uzi receiver can be made to fire one round.
To conduct this somewhat dangerous Uzi firing demonstration, first remove

the lower frame which contains the trigger, the sear, the disconnector, the
safety and the fire-control selector. If the Uzi that is being tested is later
model that has a ratcheting top cover, remove the top cover. If the Uzi has
the earlier, non-ratcheting, top cover, leave it in place. In either case, pull
the bolt rearward and hold it retracted. Place a cartridge into the chamber
and release the bolt. The Uzi will fire.
By understanding how the firearms in the preceding examples function, it is

not difficult to decide which portion of these firearms constituted their
receivers. The identification of the receivers of many other firearms,
however, is more difficult due to the improved features of their construction.
1861
RIF
One early submachine gun with an improved receiver was the pre-World
War Two German Erma model EMP {Erma Machine Pistol). Like the
receiver of its predecessor, the German MPl 8, the Erma EMP receiver is a
round tube with an attached barrel. The receivers of both the MPI 8 and the
E:MP contain the bolt and the operating..spring. Unlike the MP 18 though,
the Erma EMP receiver incorporates neither a sear to intenupt the travel of
the bolt nor an end-cap to capture the operating-spring. Though it has been
designated as the receiver, the barreled portion of the EMP alone cannot be
made to fire because it lacks a means to capture the operating-spring. The
EMP's lower frame contains the trigger, the sear, the disconnector, the firecontrol selector and an end-cap for the receiver. The benefit of attaching the
end-cap to the lower frame is that the end-cap cannot be lost, thus disabling
the firearm.
The barreled-portion of the Erma EMP is designated as its receiver. The

barreled-portion contains the bolt and the operating-spring but not an endcap to capture the operating-spring. Lacking a means to capture the
operating-spring an Er.AP receiver alone, cannot fire.
During World War Two, the Erma firm also made the German MP40. The
MP40 receiver, like the Erma EMP receiver that preceded it, contained the
barrel, the bolt and the operating-spring. Like the EMP, the :MP40 lower
frame contained the trigger, the sear and an end-cap for the receiver. Also
like the EMP, without some means to capture the operating-spring an MP40
receiver, the upper frame, cannot be made to fire.
1862
RIF
...
8
The German MP40 shares many features of the Erma E:MP. Like the EMP,
without some means to capture the operating-spring the MP40 receiver, the
upper frame, cannot fire.
The post World War Two Walther MPK. shares most of the operational
features of an Erma EMP and MP40. The MPK's barrel is attached to its
upper frame and the upper frame contains the bolt and the operating-spring
as well. Like the Erma EMP and :MP40, the upper portion of the Walther
MPK. frame has no provision for capturing the operating spring. The lower
portion of the Walther MPK. frame contains the trigger, the sear, the
disconnector, the safety, the :fire-control selector and an end-cap to capture
the operating-spring. Without a means to capture the operating-spring the
Walther MPK upper frame cannot be made to fire.
The upper frame of this Walther MPK contains the barrel, the bolt and the
operating-spring. The lower frame, however, is designated as the receiver.
The MPK receiver contains the trigger, the sear, the disconnector, the safety,
the fire-control selector and an end-cap to capture the operating-spring.
Without some means to capture the operating-spring, an MPK. upper frame
cannot fire.
1863
RIF
.
9
Though the Erma EMP, MP40 and Walther MPK operate in similar
manners, the upper frames of the former two firearms are identified as their
receivers. The lower frame of the Walther MPK, however, is identified as
its receiver.
When the contradictions in the paragraph above are examined, it becomes
clear that the MPK~s lower frame has been correctly identified as its receiver
but the EMP and IVIP40 upper frames have been misidentified. This is
because the barreled upper portions of all three of these firearms lack a
means to capture their operating-springs. Without a means to capture their
operating-springs, none of them can fare. Thus, the Walther MPK lower
frame is correctly identified as its receiver while the upper frames of the
EMP and MPO have been misidentified.
The above conclusion is supported by Canada's Centre of Forensic Sciences.
The Centre of Forensic Sciences is located in Ontario, Canada, and is
operated by the Canadian Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional
Services. This governmental organization classifies an MP40 lower frame
as its receiver for the above stated reasons plus one more. The identification
of the MP40's manufacturer appears on the lower frame but not on the upper
one.
At the top of this illustration is an MP18 receiver. It has an end-cap to

capture its operating-spring. For this reason, an MP18 receiver can fire
when it is not attached to its lower frame. An Erma E:MP receiver is in the
center and a Walther MPK upper frame is at the bottom. Neither of these
incorporate a means to capture their operating-springs. Without a means to
capture their operating-springs, neither an EMP receiver (the upper frame)
nor an MPK upper frame, can fire.
1864
RIF
10

Firearms and Explosives has correctly identified the lower frames of
MACl 0 and Ml 1 submachine guns as their receivers. Like the Walther
:MPK upper frame, the MAC 10 and Ml I upper frames contain only a barrel,
a bolt and an operating-spring. These upper frames do not incorporate a
means to capture their operating-springs. Without some means to capture
their operating-springs, neither a MACl 0 nor Ml 1 upper frame can fire.
The MAC l 0 and Ml 1 lower frames (their receivers) contain all of the firecontrol parts and they have a means of capturing the operating-spring that is
located in the upper frame. For this reason, the lower frames of these
firearms have been C01Tectly designated as their receivers.
The lower frames of the MAC 10 (left) and the Ml l (right) have been have
been correctly classified by the BATF&E FTB as their receivers. The
receivers contain the trigger, the sear, the disconnector the safety, the firecontrol selector and an end-cap to capture the operating-spring. Note that
the operating-springs protrude :from the upper frames (see arrows). Without
some means to capture the operating-spring, the upper frames cannot be
ma.de to fire.

Firearms and Explosives has many times affirmed this method of
determining the receiver designation of a firearm. Perhaps the best known
and probably the most produced BATF&E FTB approved non-firearm
MACIO and Ml 1 upper frame is the Fleming .22 Long Rifle caliber
conversion for them. Fleming .22 Long Rifle caliber conversions are
popular because they allow the owners of MAClOs and Mlls to practice
more quietly with much less costly ammunition. Except for the .22 caliber
barrel and a magazinewell that permits the use of a commonly available
1865
RIF
11
Ruger .22 Long Rifle caliber magazine, a Fleming caliber conversion upper
frame is almost identical to an original MACl 0 or Ml 1 upper frame.
At the top of this illustration is a Fleming Ml I .22 Long Rifle caliber

conversion upper frame. Below it is a standard Ml 1 9mm caliber upper
frame. Neither upper frame incorporates a method to capture the operatingspring (arrows). Without a means to capture their operatingwsprings, neither
non-firearm upper frame can be made to fire. The BATF&E FTB
determined in 1993 that both of these upper frames are not firearms.
In 1993, William Fleming submitted a sample of his .22 caliber Ml 1

conversion kit to the BA1F&E FfB for an evaluation. After examining the
Fleming kit, the BATF&E FTB issued a letter ruling. The letter, dated May
11, 1993, stated in part:
Based on the above examination, the sUbmitted H11-22

Chapter 441 or Title 26 u.s.c. Chapt~ 53.
This BATF&E FfB letter ruling re-confirms that if an accessory upper
frame does not incorporate a means to capture the operating-spring, thus
rendering it incapable of firing, then it is not a firearm. This determination
is both correct and logical.
1866
RIF
.
12
DEPARTMENT OF THE l'REASURV

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL. TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHIHGTOH. P .C. 20226
MAY I Tim
LB:P:TE:EllO
3311.4
11r. William B. Pleain~
Fleaing PireaJ:WS, Inc.

1720 East 126 Str-t North
Collinsville, Oklahoaa 74021
Dear
xr.
P1eaihg:
'!"his rare.rs to your letter ot April 29, 1993, vith
which you aubllltted a llUb caliber converaion kit

desi911ed to J>e used. with SWD lll.1/111.na subaachioeguns.
qa.ination ot the subaitted -pla, no serial nWlber,
indicates that it i a u ..t aatal upper receiver, .22
rilllrire caliber barrel, and .22 rildire caliber bolt.
ca.ponenta are d. .igned to replace the 9ma
caliber upper receiver and bolt assembly on th
Th..
K11/Hine au!MachineqWt.
!l'ba sub ce.liber as.-bly,
designated. 1111-22, l d-ignacl to function only in open

bo1t fir~ 1111/lfln subaacbinegwm. 'l'ha anderaide of.
tbe ass.ably has no cutouu to pamit uae in a closed
bol.t, hmer tired K11/9 firearm.
on the aboVe exam.nation, the submitted Jlll-22

sub caliber conversion kit is classified p not being a
firearm aa that tera is defined in Title 18 u.s.c.
Chapter 44, or 'l'itle 2& u.s.c. Chapter 53.
Based
Pleaae be advised that this detel'laination ie baaed on

tbe sample as submitted. If the desiqn, d.imenaiona,
.atarial used or configuration is changed, tbi
claasttication is sub1act to raviaw,
Tbe submitted suple is beinq returned
cover.
separate
we trust that the foregoin9 has been reapcmsiva to your

i~iry.
If va 11ay be of' any f\lrtluu: assiatanca.
pleaae contact us.
sincere1y yours,
~a~
Cbiet, Pirear.a
'l'ec:hnol~y Branch
This is the entire BATF&E FIB determination letter that states that the
Fleming Ml 1 .22 caliber conversion upper frame is not a fireann.
1867
RIF
..
13
The Lage Manufacturing Company produces BATF&E FfB approved extralong upper frames for both MAC 10 and Ml 1 firearms. The extra-long
frames allow the use of heavier bolts and thereby slow the rates of fire. The
extra ftame length also increases the sight radius. An increased sight radius
decreases sighting errors.
As with a Fleming non-firearm MAClO and Ml 1 upper frame, a Lage
MAClO and Ml 1 upper frame does not incorporate a means to capture its
operating-spring. Without some means to capture the operating-spring, a
lengthened Lage Ml 1 upper frame cannot be made to fire.
The lengthened Lage Ml 1 upper frame does not incorporate a means to

capture the operating-spring (arrow). Without some means to capture the
operating-spring, the lengthened Lage Ml 1 upper frame cannot be made to
fire. For this reason, the BATF&E FTB has determined that the Lage Ml 1
upper frame is not a fireann.
Before designing the disapproved HA.54RCCS MAClO caliber conversion

upper frame, Historical Arms designed another non-fireann MACIO upper
frame that was approved by the BATF&E Fm. The MAC 10 caliber
conversion upper frame that the BATF&E F1B previously approved is
functionally identical to the disapproved HA54RCCS.
The BATF&E FTB approved MAClO caliber conversion upper frame
allows a MAC IO (or Ml 1) to use Calico helical magazines. To accomplish
this, the Historical Anns Calico magazine upper frame was lengthened.
Like the previously described and BATF&E FTB approved non-firearm
upper frames, an Historical Arms Calico MACl 0 upper frame lacks a means
to capture its operating-spring. Without some means to capture its
1868
RIF
14
operating-spring, an Historical Arms Calico helical magazine MAC 10 upper

frame cannot be made to fire.
--~
At the top of this illustration is an Historical Arms MACIO upper frame that
permits the use of Calico helical magazines. Below is a standard MAClO
upper frame. Neither upper frame incorporates a method to capture the
operating-spring (arrows}. Due to this lack, neither a Calico helical
magazine MAC I 0 upper frame nor a standard MAC 10 upper frame can be
made to fire unless some means is devised to capture the operating-spring.
The Historical Arms Calico helical magazine MAC 10 upper was given its
initial BA'IF&E FfB written approval on June 7., 2005. In a second letter
dated November 3, 2006, the BA1F&E FTB re-emphasized their previous
approval, stating, "We found that, apart from feeding from a Calico
magazine, the design features of the original Ml O/Ml 1 had not changed
significantly. Therefore, the FTB classification provided in #2005-440 will
not be re-evaluated."
1869
RIF
..
15
....,,.,
9030SO:RDC
:Jll 112005-MO
Mr. Len Snagi:

President
Himloric Anni LLC

1486 c:mr,- Road
Frmklin, GA 30217
DearMr. ~:
nu refers 10 )"lllr lcltQ" or May lS, 2005, ID lbe F"n:ums Teehnology Branch {FTB), Bureau or
Alc:obol, TobleeCI, f'll-'ll ad ~placi~a (ATF), rcpnhog the legllli&y ormodifying aa .Ml 0or Ml 1-t)IHI upper m:cicr to ag;cpt a Calico-t}J>e helical ~
Al you ~ aware, the GH CMIU.t Ad ar 1961 (GCA), 11 U.S.C.

"Gran11R 10 include the lbllaw\ns:
'2l(a)(JJ, defillct lhe 1tnD
--<AJ any waipon (indWlllr ullllfu p11) ~ wlU or Is tlaia-J Jo or llfO)I be 111t111ity
cortwnnl 10 rzrl a projl/11 6y 11111 odion of.,. etpla.rive; (B) U../ram or~ o/G11y
.svolt wa1pott1 (CJ rmyfir- rtlllfllu ors~; or (DJ Oil)'~ dnir:r. S..Clr IVlft dOQ
OIOI inc/wh 0Jt OrtfilJIM!flrnmt.
Further, d>c NaCloaal .Flranm Ad (J\1'A). 2' U.S.C I SMS(a), dcfi111:9 '11rantR . . (I} a s/wtglllf llaviltg a bo'7'11 or barrels oflas tlilut I B Incites ia ~: (1) a ~made
frotn a shotgwi If~h.
iu JftDl!Jftl luu"" ol'D'llil lmgtll ofla1 lha1t 16 llrdia or a
1tntnl or 6orrt:ls o/ICD Vian I 8 lncJ:.s in l1np; (J) o rijlt: luzvill.1 a barrr:I :1r 1Mnfts afle1:1
iA4VI 16lndtum111116'/I: (4) a wapot1ta11tkfro,,. o rljltrf/Slldt wmpo1103 modif.Sluu an
OW1ta/l /t11Zf/1of/a.1thaJf16 lndCJ or" barn/ o, barre& ofl&s6 than 16 incltas In /aJl/a; (S)
1111)1 OfJiao wropon, U 41/fHd Us ~Oii (1); (6) II madriltqrui; (7) OIS.)' .ri/lt!CO" (Ar dlflnJ ill
IB U.S.C f 911): invl (BJ a du~ anice. 71ie 1cnn "jirmnrt snall IJOI indudu11 flnrlqut
fire.arm or fUIJI dntcr: (atllcir 1""11 a madlfr141ur or d.atnictl-,e t/r.4al) wliiclt. alJ~lt datgntd
at alt'&'ll}IOll. IM(U.S. Atr""1Gnwlll) ... jltuh b.)lnazon oft/t~dar.eofiU1r11111llf~.
\lahte, dolp, atttl ollt~ dtaroCIVQrla is prinrllrily a colleaar'6 ;,_ ORtl Lr not llbrly robe wed
-po"
IUO~
Based on lhe PTB enhwion orlhe 1111bmiuocl dnwing. it appmrs that the piopD1Cd
~ 1<WM\ I-type upper rm:ivcr assembly will be ralcslcnal 1.0 ermcnlllor&co c.iico llclieal
mapzinc mollllted atop the RCOlver. la addilion. )'Oii am the firann's original KmiaulOmltic
Cullction will pg\ be Mlered.
Tbe upper m:einr of m MIQIMU tyPO ftremm docs not eamtituta rho frame or receiver of a
ftteann. u Ihal ti:nn is defined ill 27CFRSec:ticn47&.l1 (fonnsty 171.11). B...S oa the
inrormmion provided, the imnu!IM:tww of a modified MIO/Ml l type 119Pcr n:caiver lhal ia
rmc.igned 10 9"Gept a Calico holic:11I mqainc: docs not constituU: the rnanu&c!un: ofa fuant or
RCci\lc:r or ii WaJm. The proposal upper Jw:ei~ is not subject 10 r:ilbcr 18 U.S.C. Chlpter 44
(the QCA) or 26 U.S.C. Cllaptcr 53 (the NFA).
Thia de!Cnni1Wion ia relevant ID dtc iu:m .. prcposed. Any alu:ralions or modiliCilbons 10 the
design would subject lbi: item ID firnher review.
We trust lite fOTEgains bas bocn raponsive ID your inquiry. PlCISll eontct us irwc: C1111 'be: of any
funher IKhtmcc:.
Sincc:rcly yours,
This is the original BA'IF&E FIB approval letter for the Historical Arms
MACl 0 Calico helical magazine upper frame.
1870
RIF
,.
16
U.S. Departmml of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol.Tobacco.
9030SO:RV
3311/2007076
NJV 03 2111
Mr. Len Savage
President
HiSIOric Anns, LLC

1486 ChCIT)' Road
Franklin. Georgia 30217
Dear Mr. Savage:
This is in response to 10ur i11q11iry to \he Fircanns f echnology Isranch (FTB), &urcau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding wbctbcr FTB intends to reclassify
your design an MlO. or Ml I-type upper !l=ceivcr modified to accept a Calico-t:ype helical
or
magazine.
Our Branch issued a classificaLion of this modification in our June 1, 2005, letterto you (please
refer 10 #33 l li200S-440). We found that. apan from feeding from a Calic;o magazine, the: design
features oflhc original MJO/M1 J had not changed significantly. Thcrcli:lre, lhe fTB
classification provided in #2005-440 will not be re..evaluatcd.
We trust the foregoinghl15 been rc5ponsivc to your inquiry. Please coDlacl us if we can be: ofany
further llSSistance.
Sincerely yours,
p..:c;u:-~
qi.. Sterling Nixon
"' 0
Chief, Fircanm1 Tccimoiogy Branch
This is the second BA1F&E FTB letter regarding the ffistorical Arms
MAClO Calico helical magazine upper frame. The letter re-affirms that the
ffistorical Arms Calico helical magazine MACIO upper frame is not a
fireann receiver.
All of the previously described BA1F&E FfB approved MACIO and Mil
non-firearm upper frames have one thing in common. None incorporate a
means of capturing the operating-spring. Unless these non-firearm upper
frames are used in the way for which they were intended, with a registered
1871
RIF
17
MACI 0 or Ml 1 receiver attached, or some other means is devised to capture

their operating-springs, they cannot be made to fire.
Historic Arms made a second MAC 10 caliber conversion upper frame, the
HA54RCCS. This is the one that the BATF&E FIB disapproved. Perhaps
the BATF&E FIB was confused by the HA54RCCS because it is larger than
the previous]y approved non-firearm Calico magazine MACIO upper frame.
The HA54RCCS had to be larger because it enables the pistol-caliber
MAC 10 to fire a larger rifle caliber cartridge.
Like the previously approved MAC 10 and Ml l non-firearm caliber
conversion upper frames, the Historic Anns LLC HA54RCCS MACIO
caliber conversion upper frame does not incorporate a means to capture its
MACl 0 receiver, or some other means is devised to capture its operatingspring, an Historic Arms HA54RCCS MACl 0 upper frame cannot be made
to fire.
The Historic Arms HA54RCCS MAClO caliber conversion upper frame is

at the top of this illustration. It incorporates no method to capture the
MACIO receiver, or some other means is devised to capture its operatingspring, the Historic Arms HA54RCCS upper frame cannot be made to fire.
The Historic Arms MACI 0 caliber conversion upper frame was submitted to
the BATF&E FTB for evaluation. It was disapproved with the explanation
that the Historic Arms MACIO caliber conversion upper frame is an
unregistered machine gun. When uked how that was determined, a
1872
RIF
18
representative of the FTB stated that they had been able to make the Historic
Arms MACI 0 caliber conversion upper frame fire twice.
Len Savage inquired to learn how the FTB had been able to make the openended MAC I 0 caliber convenion upper frame fire? It was explained that in
order to make the Historic Anns LLC MACIO caliber conversion upper
frame fire, the BATF&E FTB covered the end of the upper frame with an
"L,, shaped metal plate. The new plate was held tightly in place with a chain
and a turnbuckle. These new parts, simple and crude as they are, captured
the operating-spring of the HA54RCCS and allowed it to fire by using the
original cocking handle as a trigger.
Using a chain, an ''L,, shaped metal plate and a turnbuckle, the BATF&E
FTB created a crude, likely dangerous, receiver that captured the operatingspring and permitted the Historic Arms LLC MACI 0 caliber conversion
upper frame to fire uncontrollably.
The BATF&E F1B agreed to repeat the HA54RCCS test for Len Savage
and other expert witnesses to observe. Before firing, the FTB technician
placed the writ on a sandbagged table and loaded ammunition into the
feeding tray. The technician held the entire unit firmly against the sandbags
and retracted the cocking handle, thus compressing the operating-spring
against the new end-cap. Finally, the technician released the cocking
handle. The operating-spring, which was compressed against the new endcap, pushed the bolt forward. With no means to stop the bolt from cycling,
1873
RIF
19
the HAS4RCCS MAC 10 caliber conversion device fired uncontrollably until

the ammunition was exhausted.
Did this test prove that the Historic Arms HAS4RCCS MAClO caliber
conversion upper frame is an unregistered machine gun? No. Without the
chain, the metal-plate and the turnbuckle that was installed by the BATF&E
FfB, the HA54RCCS MAClO caliber conversion upper frame could not
have fired. The chain/metal-plate/turnbuckle parts, as simple as they are,
constituted a new unregistered machine gun receiver that was manufactmed
by the BATF&E FTB for the sole purpose of causing the Historic Anns
HA54RCCS MACl 0 caliber conversion to fire.
If the BATF&E FfB technician had constructed the new receiver in a more
conventional manner, it would be obvious that he had created a new firearm
receiver. The use of the chain, metal-plate and turnbuckle tends to confuse
the issue. To the untrained eye, these simple parts may not appear to be a
firearm receiver but they definitely function as one though when used in the
manner that the BATF&E FTB technician did.
In order to demonstrate that the BATF&E FIB technician's chain, metalplate and turnbuckle constitute a new receiver, these parts were borrowed
from the BATF&E FfB. They were then used to tum a standard MACIO
non-firearm upper frame into a firearm. As did the BATF&E FIB
technician, the metal-plate was placed over the open end of a MACI 0 upper
frame and held there tightly by the chain and turnbuckle. While firmly
holding the MAC 10 upper frame against a workbench, the cocking handle
was retracted and a round placed into the chamber. When the cocking
handle was released, the compressed operating-spring pushed the bolt
forward and the BATF designated non-firearm MACl 0 upper frame fired.
"
The above test was repeated using a BA1F designated non-firearm Fleming
Ml I .22 caliber conversion upper frame. Unlike the previously tested .45
caliber MACIO non-fireann upper frame, the non-fireann Fleming caliber
conversion upper frame has a magazine well. After installing the BATF&E
FTB technician's chain, metal-plate and turnbuckle, a full magazine was
inserted into the non-firearm Fleming caliber conversion's magazine well.
The unit was held tightly against the workbench and the cocking handle was
retracted to compress the operating-spring against the BATF&E F'fB
technician's metal-plate. When the cocking handle was released, the
compressed operating-spring pushed the bolt forward. Like the BATF&E
1874
RIF
...
..
20
F1B technician's test of the Historic Arms HA54RCCS MACl 0 caliber

conversion upper frame, the non-firearm Fleming .22 caliber upper frame
fired uncontrollably until the entire magazine of ammunition was exhausted.
Using the same test methods and same chain, metal-plate and turnbuckle that
the BATF&E FIB technician used to make the Historic Arms HA54RCCS
MAC I 0 caliber conversion unit fire, this BATF&E non-firearm designated
MACI 0 upper ftame was made to fire. The chain/metal-plate/turnbuckle
unit constitutes the manufacture of an unregistered receiver
Using the same metal plate, chain and turnbuckle, many other BATF&E
FTB non-firearm designated upper frames and caliber conversion units could
be made to fire. These include, but are not limited to, the Lage MAC I 0 and
Ml l upper frames and the Historic Arms MAC 10 and Ml I Calico magazine
conversion upper frames.
The results of the tests are clear. When combined with an open-ended
BATF&E FfB designated non-firearm upper frame, a chain, a metal-plate
and a turnbuckle become a firearm receiver. Neither a MACI 0 upper frame
1875
RIF
Page 1 of 3
TEST AND EXAM OF lilSTORIC ARMS LLC

7.62x54R CALIBER CONVERSION SYSTEM (HA54RCCS)
JUNE 10, 2009
BACKGROUND
The Historic Arms LLC 7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System [HA54RCCSJ is a device
from a MAC-10, which contains the MAC-IO's fire control group, is properly attached to
the HA54RCCS.
The HA54RCCS can be made to effect uncontrollable firing (Sputter Gun) ifthe
should be classified as unregistered conversion devices 0 >because they convert the
HA54RCCS from a non-firearm into an unregistered machinegun.
ATFTEST
chain, a turnbuckle, and a bent piece of aluminum as shown in Photo I:
PHOTO 1
1876
RIP
Page 2 of 3
PHOT02
construction.
containing five (5) rounds of 7.62x54R ammunition.
At this point FTB Firearms Examining Officer (b) (6)
placed one hand on
ATF TEST FINDINGS
A non-firearm can be converted into an unregistered machine gun using simple

components.
1877
RIP
..
Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
I) ATF personnel have the ability and knowledge to construct (make) <2> an
unregistered machinegun from a non-fireann using simple components.

2) Once activated, the unregistered machinegun constructed by A TF personnel using
3) The HA54RCCS in its original configuration is a non-fireann and is incapable of
(b) (6)
Cell: (b) (6)
Reference:
The tenn "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any
(2) 26 U.S.C., 5845 (i) Make
The tenn "make'', and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing
together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm.
1878
RIP
tli$torie '(irmz b.b.C.

~I
.A1!!SI .:.
70&-675-0287 Home
706-675-0818 Shop
CASE NO. 1:09-CV-0192-GET
TEST AND EXAM OF JUNE 10, 2009

COWETA COUNTY TRAIN1NG RANGE
OBSERVATIONS:
Firearms Examining Officer (b) (6)

installed ATFs "collection of parts" on the
Historical Arms 54R Caliber Conversion System [HA54RCCS]. These parts consisted of chain,
aluminum plate and turnbuckle or tension bolt. After instillation, he loaded HA54RCCS, and
ATF damaged HA54RCCS in previous testing by breaking the shell deflector (which allows the
system, when correctly assembled using a standard MAC machine gun receiver to be safely
FEO (b) (6) whose photographs show that the tension bolt was previously attached to the shell
deflector. ATF did not supply docmnentation explaining how the damage to the shell deflect.or
occurred.
ATF also presented the sample MAC type upper used in their analysis as well as the MAC
"receiver" with fire control components removed that ATF used in its April 15, 2009, test video.
The MAC ..receiver" was a machinegun made by Military Armament COllJ.
The significance that the "receiver" ATF used is a macbinegun receiver is the fact that ATF
installed the HA54RCCS into a machinegun, and that the machinegun receiver functioned as a
macbinegun. Did the ATF expect a different result? What other result is possible? When asked
what ATFs presented "sample MAC 10 upper" would do when installed in the same macbinegun
receiver, ATF refused to answer, and requested the question be submitted in writing.
I attempted to test fire the HA54RCCS without ATFs "collection of parts... I placed a loaded
belt in HA54RCCS with three rotmds of am.munition, and attempted to fire it. HA54RCCS did
not feed a single round, or fire a single round, of ammunition.
I also test fired HAS4RCCS as designed; that is, to be installed into an existing MAC
macbinegun whose receiver had not been modified. After checking the completed assembly and
1879
RIP
test firing three rounds to set and adjust the gas regulator, I fired eight rounds in two-round bursts
x 54R ammunition.
At the conclusion of the test and examinations at the Coweta County Sheriffs Training Range.
further tests.
TEST AND EXAM OF JUNE l 0, 2009

fflSTORIC ARMS LLC TEST RANGE
OBSERVATIONS:
Defense experts provided a "sample MAC 10 type upper'. The "sample MAC 10 type upper" is
an example of a MAC I 0 upper that is designed to be used with a MAC l 0 machincgun.
Defense experts instaJled ATF's "collection of parts.'' After some experimentation, the completed
assembly was then loaded with a 45 ACP round and fired in the manner identical to how ATF
tested HA54RCCS. The result of this test was that the sample MAC 10 type upper fired, i.e.,
Defense experts installed the sample MAC I 0 type upper into a semiautomatic MAC receiver
stripped of fire control components [to replicate ATF's April 15, 2009 test}, and test fired the
assembled firearm. The result was that the sample MAC 10 type upper, instalJed on any type
MAC receiver stripped of fue control components, fired more than one shot in the swne exact
manner as HA54RCCS.
upper. The Flemming ''upper" is marketed as a caliber conversion system for MAC type
machineguns since 1993. The result oftest firing the FJemming "upper" after installing ATF's
collection of parts was identical to the result oftest firing HA54RCCS after installing ATF's
In other words, the results were identicaJ to the Historic Arms 54R Caliber Conversion System in
that the FJemming unit fired all rounds supplied ammunition upon release of the cocking handle
1880
RIF
CONCLUSIONS:
One where a "collection of parts" were applied [i.e. chain, aluminum plate and rumbuckle or
tension bolt] to HA54RCCS. Testing by the defense revealed that this tests turns all MAC type
uppers into firearms, and on other commercially available "uppers" or ''caliber conversion
systems" into a machinegun, although such macbineguns are unsafe and impractical because
The second test conducted by ATF [April 15, 2009] was to install HA54RCCS into a
machinegun receiver from which the fire control components were removed. ATF stated the
reason was that the receiver contains the recoil system. ATF did not state the obvious; namely.
all MAC type fireanns work in that fashion. Importantly, ATF' s presented "sample MAC upper"
fired identically to the HA54RCCS when the same test was applied.
ATF failed to recognize that the HA54RCCS was made from portions of a semiautomatic
receiver. The correspondence of June 10, 2008, identifies and documents "machinegun receiver"
as the term ATP used when describing the parts that were used to construct HA54RCCS. Pages
4 and 5 of the June 10, 2008. correspondence documents that the parts Historic Arms LLC used
are from a semiautomatic receiver: "The left side bolt guide rail was widened in a manner to
In ATPs mistaken attempt to purportedly '1-eadily restore" the portions of the semiautomatic
could be assembled into a machinegun. If applied to other MAC type uppers or caliber
conversion systems [that ATF bas already declared not to be firearms], ATF's collection of parts
causes MAC type uppers or caliber conve~ioo systems to fire automatically (the same result as
According to page 100 of the trial transcript., his testimony states:
"And it can l!r a part solelv intended - sokly dqiped and intmd<d to con'llOt a firearm into
a machine gun. or a combjnatign o(parls that are designed to convert q firearm Into a
machine gun. i(those parts are under the control or possqsion ofa person."

"A. And those oarls toiethn hgt bv themselves wou/4 be a mgchi.ne gun.
Q. Okay,
A. Becqqse they would be a combjnalion ofparts from whieh q 11U1C/rine run couJJ/ be
con[icurpl"
1881
RIP

ATLANTA DIVISION
)
)
)
v.
)
)
ONE IDSTORIC ARMS MODEL 54RCCS
)
)
SYSTEM" MACIDNE.GUN, SERIAL NO. Vl, )
)
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
No.1:09-CV-00192-GET
CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S FfilST REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION
1. Admit that the HA54RCCS is designed to and does expel a projectile by means
of an explosive.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS was designed specifically not to expel a

projectile by means of an explosive unless it is installed into or converted into
a machinegun. As a point of fact, the HA54RCCS by itself does nothing and
will not function in any way.
2. Admit that the HA54RCCS was originally registered as a short-barreled rifle.
Response: Admitted, as the HA54RCCS was, and continues to be, registered
as a short-barreled rifle.
3. Admit that the HA54RCCS is a machinegun as it is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by single function of the trigger.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS is designed to not shoot even a single
round unless it is installed in a machinegun. Since it never was a machinegun
it cannot be "restored" under the definition of "bring back to its original
state".
4. Admit that the HA54RCCS utilizes the frame or receiver of a PK-type
machinegun.
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1882
1 IPugt:.
RIF
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS does not use the frame or receiver of a
PK-type machinegun. The receiver design is unique unto itself.
5. Admit that the HA54RCCS utilizes the same operating principles/firing
sequence a as a PK-type machinegun.
Denied. The HA54RCCS only utilizes the operating principals of the host
machineguo to which it is installed and does not operate at all outside of one.
The feed cycle of the ammunition does indeed replicate a PK type firearm
both the semiautomatic version as well as the machinegun version. It must be
also be noted that the HA54RCCS and semiautomatic as well as the
machinegun version of PK-type firearms are all gas operated, in that the
operation is dependent on propellant gases to drive the operational
components via a gas piston. The HA54RCCS gas system is different in
design than that of any PK-type firearm of which Claimant is aware.
6. Admit that the HA54RCCS is constructed from a semiautomatic PK-type
receiver which was modified to facilitate automatic fire.
Response: Denied. Although the HA54RCCS is constructed from. portions of

a semiautomatic receiver (among other things], it was constructed and
designed to be installed in and to allow use of 7.62x54R ammunition in a
lawfully possessed MAC 10 machinegun.
7. Admit that Historic Anns, LLC, modified a semiautomatic PK-type receiver into
a PK-type machinegun receiver when it manufactured the HA54RCCS.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS is constructed partially from portions of

a semiautomatic receiver, although this was only done for expediency .in the
construction of a sample - the production version would be newly
manufactured. The HA54RCCS is different both dimensionally and design
from that of any known version of a PK-type firearm, semiautomatic or
machinegun. It is specifically designed to be installed in and to allow use of
7.62x54R ammunition in a lawfully possessed MAC 10 machinegun.
8. Admit that the HA54RCCS will fire automatically without permanent
modifications.
Response: Objection. The request is vague in that it does not describe what
would constitute a "permanent modification." Based on the foregoing
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1883
2jPug e
RIF
objection, Claimant admits that the HA54R(:CS can be modified to fire

automatically, and Claimant further admits that such modifications, if made
correctly, could be "undone," and thus restore the HA54RCCS to its preautomatic non-firing condition.
9. Admit that the HA54RCCS contains the following characteristics of a general
purpose machinegun: belt fed, open bolt firing, and fixed firing pin.
Response: Denied. Claimant does not admit that the characteristics listed are
"characteristics of a general purpose machinegun," and notes that "general
purpose machinegun" is neither a defined term nor a common term in the
firearms industry. Claimant admits that the HA54RCCS contains the
characteristics listed as those terms are commonly used in the firearms
industry.
10. Admit that the HA54RCCS is a firearm as defined by 26.U.S.C. 5845 (a).
Response: Admitted, as the HA54RCCS was registered as a short-barreled

rifle as instructed by the chief of FfB and as approved by ATF.
11. Admit that the HA54RCCS is a firearm as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
Denied. The HA54RCCS is specifically designed not to function or even

discharge one round unless installed in a machinegun. ATF considers devices
that are identical in function to not even be Title I firearms (i.e. Devices that
function as MAC 10 type "uppers" with built in feed devices, open bolt in
and
containing
a
fixed
a
firing
pin.).
operation,
To address the specifics of 26 USC 5845(b):
The HA54RCCS does not "shoot", just as no MAC 10 type "upper"
shoots, it requires a machinegun receiver to "shoot".
The HA54RCCS is specifically "designed" not to "shoot" as any MAC
10 type "upper" is designed specifically not to shoot, it requires a
machinegun receiver to "shoot".
The BA54RCCS can not be "readily restored to shoot" because it never
was a machinegun, therefore cannot be "brought back into its original
state or condition" of something it never was originally.
l :09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1884
3 I Pn g.c
RIF
..
The HA54RCCS does not contain the receiver or frame of a

machinegun.
The HA54RCCS is not designed and intended solely and exclusively, or
a combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a
weapon into a machinegun. It is not possible for the HAS4RCCS to
convert a machinegun into a machinegun.
T~e
HA54RCCS is only one part in a "combination of parts" required

to fire more than one shot per function of the trigger.
12. Admit that the HA54RCCS will expel a projectile by means of an explosive
without utilizing a MAC-type receiver.
Response: Denied. By itself, the HA54RCCS will not expel a projectile.

Installing the HA54RCCS into a MAC lower is one method that could be used
to allow the HA54RCCS to expel a projectile. It also is possible to cause the
' HA54RCCS to expel a projectile by adding a combination of parts to the
HA54RCCS to convert it into a machine gun.
13. Admit that the HA54RCCS is not a hammer or striker fired fireann.
r
Response: Admitted
14. Admit that the HA54RCCS utilizes a PK-type machinegun bolt that was
modified by Historic Arms, LLC.
Response: Admitted.
15. Admit that the HA54RCCS (with or without a MAC receiver) is what is
commonly referred to as a belt fed general purpose machinegun.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS is commonly referred to as a "MAC

upper."
16. Admit that the addition of a - 1 inch x 1 inch aluminum plate1 a short length of
chain, a small piece of duct tape and tensioning bolt are not permanent
modifications.
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Anns, LLC
1885
41Pagc
RIF
Response: Denied. The request does not indicate by what means the
collection of parts described is added, nor what the collection of parts is added
to. For example, welding the metal collection of parts into place may be
"permanent." Taping them into place may not be "permanent."
17. Admit that the HA54RCCS would fire automatically until the ammunition was
expended if it were loaded with a belt of ammunition and positioned against any
solid object (such that the object would contain the bolt, recoil spring and
operating rod) and the bolt was retracted and released.
Response: Objection. The request does not seek admission of an existing fact,
but rather calls for prediction that a hypothetical set of facts would produce a
certain result. Subject to the foregoing objection, Claimant admits that it is
possible that any MAC upper, including the HA54RCCS, could be made to
fire as described in the request.
18. Admit that the HA54RCCS would fire automatically until
the ammunition was
I
expended if it were loaded with a belt of ammunition and any object or objects
capable of containing the bolt, recoil spring and operating rod were attached to the
rear of the HA54RCCS and the bolt was retracted and released.
Response: Objection. The request does not seek admission of an

existing fact, but rather calls for prediction that a hypothetical set of
facts would produce a certain result. Subject to the foregoing
objection, Claimant admits that it is possible that any MAC upper,
including the HA54RCCS, could be made to fire as described in the
request.
19. Admit that the HA54RCCS is readily restorab)e to fire automatically.
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS can not be "readily restored to shoot"

because it never was a machinegun, therefore cannot be "brought back into its
original state or condition" of something it never was originally.
20. Admit that it would hot take a skilled machinist to enable the HAS4RCCS to
fire automatically
l :09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1886
SI Page
RIF
Response: Objection. The request is vague in that it does not specify whether
it refers to the HA54RCCS firing automatically with, or without, the MAC
lower for which it was intended. Subject to the foregoing objection, Claimant
admits that it does not take a skilled machinist to install the HA54RCCS into
the MAC lower for which it was intended, and that such combination of
HA54RCCS and MAC lower would be expected to fire automatically (because
the MAC lower is a machine gun). It would take somewhat more skill, but
probably not a "skilled machinist," to employ a combination of parts to
attempt to convert the HA54RCCS into a machineguri, as Plaintiff claims to
have done.
21. Admit that the HA54RCCS will fire automatically with the addition of
common pieces of hardware and that this could be accomplished in a few minutes
with few, if any, common tools.
Response: Objection. The request is vague and does not request an

admission of an existing fact, but rather calls for a prediction of what would
happen if unspecified "pieces of hardware" were installed with unspecified
"few, in any, common tools." Subject to the foregoing objection, Claimant
admits that it is possible to convert a MAC upper, including the HA54RCCS,
into a machine gun using a collection of parts.
22. Admit that the 1- inch x I inch aluminum plate, a short length of chain, a
small piece of duct tape and tensioning bolt are not a conversion device designed
to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.
Response:
Denied.
As described, the parts could comprise a conversion
d~vice.
small piece of duct tape and tensioning bolt are not a combination of parts
designed to convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun.
-Response: Denied. As described, the parts could comprise a collection of

parts.
1:09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1887
6IP ng.e
RIF
Len Savace
706 - 675-0818
Pl
24. Admit that if the HA54RCCS is not a PK-type machinegun, that it is an

entirely new macbinegun that is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to
shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by single
Response: Denied. The HA54RCCS lacks the characteristics described in the

request. For a more thorough response, see the response to Request for
Admission No. 11 above.
l declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing substantive responses to
the Plaintiff's first requests for admission are true and correct.
Dated May 29, 2009
onroe
orney at Law
640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
678-362-7650
I :09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Anns, LLC
1888
71 ; ;{-;.'
RIF

N.C. Bar 13151
Telephone: (704) 3 76-6455
Facsimile: (704) 332-5010
A1TORNEYSFORCLAIMANT
1:09-CV-OO192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1889
8IP age
RIF

BUR.EAU OF ALCOHOL. TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON. DC. 2DU6
LE:F: TE:EMO
3311.4
MAY 1 71993
Mr. William ff, .Fleming
Pleming P.~rearms, Inc.

Collin~ville, OklJlhoaa 74021
Dear Mr. Fleaihq:
This refors to your letter of April 29, 1993, vith
which you submitted a sub caliber conversion kit
designed to be ~sed with &WO ~11/Nine sub111&C!,1Jneguna.
B~aminatlon of the eubllitted sample, no serial nwa~er, .

indicates that it is a sheet natal upper receiver, .22
riJafire caliber barrel, and . 22 rlntire caliber bolt. 1
',
These components are designed to replace the 911111
. caliber uppr receiver and bolt assembly on the
~11/Nlne submachinegun.
'l'he sub caliber assembly,
designated Mll-22, is designed to function only in open
bolt tiring Mll/Nine sub1111tchinaquna . The underside of
the assembly has no cutouts to pemit use i~ a cl.C?sed
~t~'l?...:
bolt, hlllalller !ired Mll/9 fireann.
,
...~ : i{:.,;;.:;~,;'J
~::f!1~~
&lsed on the above examination, the aubmittad..K11:..22 .... _, ,.

sub caliber conversion kit ia c:laasified aa nt>S: beJ.nq 'a d .i.i.J'i.~
tireann 1u1 that term 1a defined- in Title 1.11 .U.$.c:
,; .:r/"~'"i'':"i~~
Chapter 44, or Title.2&~u. s, c. ChaptJt.r 53. .: :
,i
'.'_::~~''_:;; ,.\.
...
.. ' ... .
. .. ~... ,, . :""~.,,,~~
Please be dviHd tht this date.oainatlon ia ,based on. ~>;:.. '. .. - ~~~..,
the sample as submitted, I f the deuign, dP..~neione ;.
~~
~i, ,.;,J. :
11atrial used or contlquration is changed, tliis 1 .
~
,
classification ia subject to review. .
.-.
. '
'
.,
.
The eubllitted suple is beinq returnad under' separate :.;. ~MC.a,......_;

cover.
ii' ' J..i !. '"'
~ ~.-~
~ '
We trust that the !o'regoinq has ben responsive to
inqiry.
If ve aay be
please con~act ua.
or any further
aa~istanca ; !
Sincerely yours,
..
1890
RIF
[OCR conver sion with cleanup of letter Obtained via FOlA.)

[Redactions are in the ori gi na1 as provided in response to the F<>IA demand .]
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO ANO FIREARMS
[symbols redacted]
JUL
23 1996
Narne Redacted)
Address Redacted]
fCity. ST Zip Redacted]
Dear [Redacted]
This is in res~nse to your letter of recent date, to
the aureau of Alcohol. Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). In
your letter. you request classificatiun of a device
which you have designed to YJork on your seraiautomatic
fi r earnis. You have also submitted a sample of the
Title 18 united states code (u.s.c.), chapter 44,
922(0). makes it unlawful for any person to possess,
t r ans fe r or manu fac curer [sic] a mac hi ne!1un 'l'1hi ch was not
rcgi s trircd in accordance with the provi s1 ons of the
National Firearms Act (N.FA) prior to ~1ay 19, 1986.
As defined in Title 26 u. s.c . chapter 53, ~ 5845(b),
of the NFA, the term "machinegun" means any v1eapon
wllich shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily
rl'stored to shoot automatically more than one shot,
without manual reloadin~J, by a single function of the
trigQer. The term shall also incluile t:he frame or
receiver of any such weapon, any pa.rt: designed and
interlded solely and exclusively, or combination of
weapon into a machinegun, and any compbinat:ion of parts
from which a n:achinegun can be assembled if such parts
The submitted sarn~le is a length of shoe string

end of this page)
1891
RIF
-2[N arne Redacted]
[approximately 7 1 ines of text redacted at the top of

th1 s page]
has previously examined similar devices and
detcmitled that they are auxiliary uigger mechanisms
which are designed atld intended for use in converting a
semiautomatic riffo into a machinegun: thereforet they
ar e l"(lachille9uns as defined in 584 5 Cb). Based upon
our exarnitlation of the submitted device and the
sample device is also an auxiliary trigQer mechanism
and a .. mac:hinegun'' as defined in the t:h1 rd paragraph of
this letter.
AT F
a ~ac:hinegun which is not registered in accordance with

the provisions of the NFA. since vie are unable to
and 922(0), we are unable to return it to you, as
subm1tted. However, we can return your shoe string
wi thout the 1oops.
The shoe string .,.,,hi ch you submitted (1 ess the loops) is
beit\g retu r ned under separate cover.
''1e r egret that we are Ur'lclble to respond more favo rably
at the prese11t time. If you have further questions
concerning this matter. please contact us.
sincerely yours.
[signature of official Redacted]

1892
RIF
U-' Depnrlmcnl
or Ju~1icc
Burc;u1of Alcohol. Toh~co

l 11~1rm uud E~plo.,j \cs
SEP :J 0 2004
903050
(b) (6)
33 I 11:?004-379
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
Dcn
This refers 10 your lcttcroffchrnar~ (1, 200.l. lo the Rurcau of Alcohol. Tobacco, Fm:mms nn1!
t:.xplomcs (A TF), fm:anns Tcchnoltlgy Branch (FfB ), in which you mquin.'<l about thc kgalny
ufu small sc:cuon of string mtcnJcd for use as a means for increasing the cycling r.itc ofn
semiautomatic rifle.
,\s
)'OU
maybe imun:. the National Fircanns ,\c1, '.!6 U .S.C. 5845(b), defines "machim:gun" lo

.uny weapon that shoot5, as dc~1gncd to shoot, or can be readily rcston:d lo shoot, au1oma11cally more
than unc ~h o1. without m.inu~l rduading. by 11 single function uf 1hc trigger. Th11 term shall also mcludc
lhc frJmc orn:cciwr of any such \Wapon, An~ p11r11ksli:ncd uiul ln1cn1kd ~nlcly 11nd cxduslwly, or
cnmhh1n1hm of pnr1~ designed and Intended, for usr In COll\'~rllni: n l\'c;i11on lntu Q mAchh1rg11n. and
~ ny tombinahon of p:irts from which a m:ichincgun C3/1 be nlicmblcd 1f wch p:ans arc in the pns&ess1on
or under the con1rol nfn person [bo\ling aJJcdl.
In 1!196, FTB c~:unincd and cla~siticd a 14-inch long shoestring with a loop al each c:nd. The
slnng 11 as 11t111chcd 10 the cocking handle of a sc:miautoniatic rifle: 11nd 1vas loop~oJ around the
trigger and attached to the shoolc:r's linger. T11e device: caused the weapon to fire n:pc::Ucdly
1.tn!ll finger pressure: w115 rt:lcuscd from the string. Because: this item 11us dcsigncd :ind intc:mkd
to com en a sc:moulomalic rifle into o machinegun, FfB determined that it wa.~ 11 m11chlnci:un
us dclinL'<l in 26 U.S.C. 5845{bJ.
We thnnk you for your 111qu1r}. regret the dc:l:iy in response, aml trust the foregoing has bc:c:11
rcsponsi1c.
Sincerely yours,
1893
RIP
Page I of!
or
THE T~~URY
Bureau al ~lcohol, Tobacco and Firear~
Wnshlnqton, O.C. 20226
oePll~THENT
JIJN 7 1934
cc-~J.123
Htl'.Ol!i\MOOH ?O: Special
~gent
Detroit
~ield
ln Charqe
Division
Fl\CM:
Associate Chia! Counsel

(Firaanos J\.,d tplosivesl
SUBJE:CT:
Poli: y
This is in
ma ch1ne
resp~nse
con~eraion
rt:JllP
Claritic~tion
-- conversion Kits
t o your re<rJest !or an opinion whether a

ki t
is
"firea~
far purpo3es or th@ Gur.
Control Act ot 1969 (GCAI , 18 u.s.c. Ch~ptcr 44. You advise that
th15 opinion is souqht by the United States District Court for the
Eastern Distrlet of Hic hiq&n.
Far purposes of the G::A, the
se c~1on ~21(ol l 3J to ~ean:
~e::'ID
" fi rea rm" 1 defined in 18
u.s.c.
(Al any weapon l includinq a starter qunl vhich wi ll or i

desiqnt d to or ~ay readily be converted to expel a projectile
by t~ action o r an explosive; (8) t he !rame or receivar o !
any suc h weapon; IC) any fi:eano i:wf!lar or !i:eano llncer;
er (0) any destructive devica .. .
Ha:hineq~n conversion kits ara not anonq tha it""s de!in d a
!irea::::s by section 921faJ ( 3). Therefore, e1&chine gun onvarsion
k!ts aro not subject to re9ulaticn aa !i:ear:as under tha GCA. For
ex11:1ple, a person anqa;ed in the business of dealing only in auch
k!ta wculd not ~e reir~ired to obtain a license as a de1le: in
!irearms under :he GCA. A~ao, a perDcn who trnnaferred a

r11Achine9un c anveraicn kit ta a !elan or other pc:~on prohibit~d
!ror.1 rocaivi n9 or poa1c sain9 !irO&ITlll would not violoto 19 u.s. c.
s ection 922 1d), nor would the prohibited person's roceipt or
possoaoion of the kit violate li u.s.c. Dection 922(9) .
- 2 -
Spec ial A;ent in Charge

C.troi t Fiol d Dlvhi c:i
Ho...,Yer, machinegur. ecnversi on kits are within the defini tio n c!
"ILlc hineoun" !or purposes of t.ho GCA and are, therefore, aubjeet to
all GO>. controls !mpoed upon -:0..chinequna". For CCA purpoaca, ~ he
definition o! "machinegun" in 18 u.s.c. seet!on 921 !11231
incorporate tho definition of such teil:l in the National Firean:a
Act, 26 u.s.c. sec tio n 5945(bl . Aa da~i ned by sction ~945 ! b) ,
":mac h!.n;un"
~a:1.s,
aa;or.9 o=.her th!.r.c;s, an y , . . cmbinatic:l. o!
parts desiqned and inter.dee, !e r ue in c:onver tinq a weapon i nto a

oachir.equn# i.e . a =achir.e9un convera!on ki~ . Thus, und~r tl'ae
GCJ.., a ~c hinequn cenvorsion kit is, !or exac:pl e, a !11Aehine9..i..~
aub)cct to the prohiblti on with respect to possesaion and trans!er
o! :::.ochinc9uns in 18 u.s.c. aactlon 922 101 a.~d the prohibitio n in
l8 u.s.c. 1oction < o ft ~! aqainst transporting lllllehineoun~
int~ratote without the approval o! the SecrotAry o! the ?rea aury.
l'leose advloe i l you ha; o Any quo a tl ons re9'1rdin9 t.'11 opinion.
[algned )
J ack B. Patterson
hnp://www.cs cmu.c:dulafs/csfuscr/wbardwcl/public/nfalisr/atf_lettcr3 7.txl
1894
611812009
RIF
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Phone (b) (6)
(b) (6)
P .E.
Day
Evening
Education:
Bachelor of Science Degree in Structural Design and Construction Engineering Technology
The Pennsylvania State University Capitol Campus 1990
Licensures/Certifications:
Professional Engineering License issued 2005 in Pennsylvania
Emplovment:
October 1989 to Present
Johnson Mirmiran and Thompson

220 St Charles Way, Suite 200
York Pa. 17402
Senior Engineer and Associate
Structure Design Engineer for Transportation Type Structures.

Structure Design experience in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware
and Florida. Experience includes development of specification and testing
procedures.
Designer of several firearm systems in collaboration with Historic Arms LLC.

Used experience and background knowledge in mechanical systems and engineering
dynamics to design several firearm systems in collaboration with Historic Arms LLC.
Avid firearms enthusiast and amateur gunsmith
Previous testimony as expert:
The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation v The City of Philadelphia.
Docked number A-0017402, May 2001
1895
RIP


MachinegunRegistered ReceiverUpper ReceiverLower receiverControlled fireUncontrolled fire-

recoil device.

MAC 1O family of registered machineguns (referred to as "the unit") to determine
1896
RIF
test fire the unit.
PKM). The fully automatic internal parts of the PKM machinegun could not be

ATF considers the MAC 1O upper machinegun receiver to be a firearm part and
1897
RIP
testing.
rounds in an uncontrolled fashion . It chambered the third round without firing .
control MAC 1o upper machinegun receiver was attached to a semi automatic
and the bolt pulled to the rearward position and released . The upper fired the
the MAC 10 registered machinegun to fire 22 rim fire ammunition . The feed
1898
RIF
round.
Test Findings
attached the Historic Arms unit to a registered MAC 1O lower receiver, with the
control upper.
Per accepted scientific and engineering practices as
gth
edition or numerous other scientific and engineering
units fired in an uncontrolled fashion, this test appears to have tittle or no merit in
determining the classification of the Historic Arms unit. In both cases the tower
(MAC 1O machinegun upper) and the Historic Arms unit.
1899
RIF
1900
RIF
Conclusion:
MAC 1O upper (control unit). The tests also demonstrate the Historic Arms Unit
accepted MAC 1O upper receiver (control unit) as well as other commercially
(b) (6)
P.E.
Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.

(b) (6)
Associate
P.E.; C.B.S.I .

York, PA 17402
P. (b) (6)
F. (b) (6)
M. (b) (6)
mailto:(b) (6)
1901
RIP
1902
RIF
Pholo 3 Left slda of Historic Arms unit with acldecl parts
Photo 4- Historic Arms unit with chain wrapped around the forward grip
1903
RIF
Photo 5 front view of Historic Arms unit with added parts
Photo 6 Full auto bolt on left and Historic Arms bolt on right
1904
RIF
.. 1
'

ATLANTA DMSION
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
No.1:09-CV-00192-GET
)
)
)
ONE HISTORIC ARMS MODEL S4RCCS

"7.62XS4R CALIBER CONVERSION
)
Defendant.
CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND DISCOVERY

REQUESTS
Interrogatories
1. Identify the person or persons providing the substantive information responsive

to these and all prior discovery requests served by Plaintiff.
Response: Claimant and its president, Len Savage

2. Identify all persons who were present on behalf of Claimant at the June 10,
2009, event at the Coweta County Firing Range.
Response: Objection: This list was provided before the testing. In response,
this information can be gleaned from the consent forms signed by all parties
present, which forms are in the custody and control of Plaintiff.
3. Provide the date, time, location, name and role of all persons present for the
testing conducted by Claimant for which Plaintiff was not present, depicted on the
DVD video that was provided to Plaintiff (referring to the portion of the recording
that follows Claimant's video of the June 10, 2009, Coweta County Firing Range
event).
Response: The date stamp contained in the video itself is believed to be

accurate. The time was approximately 4 p.m. The location was the offices of
Claimant located at 1486 Cherry Road, Franklin, GA. The experts who
attended the joint testing at the Coweta County range were present, plus a
Mark Schaffer of Newnan, GA, who provided additional firearms for testing.
Len Savage did the testing. The rest of those present did a combination of
observation, video recording, loading magazines, and similar tasks.
I :09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1905
l lPage
RIF
..
..
4. Described the devices tested in the video identified in Interrogatory number

three, above, including any modifications or other changes made to said devices.
Response: The devices tested in the video were:
Closed bolt MAC-10 type semiautomatic frame with the fire control
components removed. Additionally the same approximate upper that ATF
refers to as "sample MAC 10 upper" in its correspondence and that was
produced at the Coweta County range was installed in the semi frame.
Closed bolt MAC 10 type semiautomatic frame with fire control components
(factory complete). Additionally the same approximate upper that ATF refers
to as "sample MAC 10 upper" in its correspondence and that was produced at
the Coweta County range was installed in the semi frame.
ATF conversion device [plate, chain and tension bolt loaned by plaintiff to
claimant] installed on the same approximate upper that ATF refers to as
"sample MAC 10 upper" in its correspondence and that was produced at the
Coweta County range.
ATF conversion device [plate, chain and tension bolt loaned by plaintiff to
claimant] installed on an ATF approved Flemming .22 upper, caliber
conversion device with scopemount and barrel extension installed.
UZI machinegun receiver that was compared with the same approximate
upper that ATF refers to as "sample MAC 10 upper" in its correspondence
and that was produced at the Coweta County range.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
1. Produce all reports, accounts or other documents prepared by those persons

identified in response to Interrogatory no. 2, above.
Response: The reports already were provided in response to an earlier
request. Claimant is unsure what is meant by "accounts," but believe that
term is being used interchangeably with "reports." No other documents exist
that are not attorney-client privileged or attorney work product.
I :09-CV-00192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1906
21Page
RIF
.,
2. Produce any and all communications, whether electronic mail, written or in any
other format, sent or received by Historic Arms, LLC, or Len Savage regarding the
design, manufacture, testing or classification of the Defendant Firearm.
Response: None exist except what one Party or the other already has
provided in discovery and what is privileged attorney-client communication.
3. Produce any and all communications, whether electronic mail, written or in any
other format, sent or received by Historic Arms, LLC, or Len Savage regarding the
event depicted in the DVD video provided to Plaintiff by Claimant (referring to the
portion of the recording that follows Claimant's video of the June 10, 2009, Coweta
County Firing Range event).
Response: None exist except what is privileged attorney client

communications and attorney work product.
3. Any and all notes, drawings or other writings taken by any person whom
Claimant intends to call as an expert taken before, during or after the event at the
Coweta County Firing Range on June 10, 2009.
Response: Claimant notes that this is the second Request for Production with
the number "3" assigned to it. Objection - no such items are in Claimant's
possession or control, but if they did exist they would be attorney-client
privileged and attorney work product.
4. Any and all notes, drawings or other writings taken by any person whom
Claimant intends to call as an expert taken before, during or after the testing at an
unknown date and location depicted on the DVD provided to Plaintiff.
Response: Objection - no such items are in Claimant's possession or control,

but if they did exist they would be attorney-client privileged and attorney
work product.
5. Please provide a CV for all persons identified in response to Interrogatory 2,
above, for whom you have not already provided a CV.
Response: All such CVs have been provided, with the exception of Claimant's
counsel, for whom Claimant does not interpret this request to be intended to
include.
I :09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1907
JI Page
RIF
.,
I declare wider penalty of perjury that the foregoing substantive responses to
'rroJ kovt. r~"6
::~::;; '.~B fi- odm1ss1o&are ttue and
correcLL
Jo
Monroe
Att rney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
678-362-7650
l :09-CV-O> 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1908
41Page
RIF
.,,.
~.
. ..

N.C. Bar 13151
Telephone: (704) 376-6455
Facsimile: (704) 332-5010
l :09-CV-OO 192-GET
Historic Arms, LLC
1909
SI Page
RIF
~.
'
Engineering analysis of the design, function, and operational characteristics of the Historic
Arms Model 54RCCS Caliber Conversion System for the MIO machine gun.
Report prepared in response to the

Complaint of Forfeiture
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division
United States of America, Plaintiff
vs.
One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS "7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System" Machine Gun,
Serial No. V 1
Prepared by
Dr Edward J. Shaughnessy
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science
Duke University
All correspondence should be addressed to the author at 31 Southampton Place, Durham, NC
27705 or by email to ejshaughnessy@aol.com
1910
RIF
Nomenclature
The mechanical device examined in this report is referred to in various ways. The original
designation by Historic Arms is "Historic Arms Model 54RCCS Caliber Conversion System".
The plaintiffs legal action refers to the same device as "One Historic Arms Model 54RCCS
"7.62x54R Caliber Conversion System" Machine Gun, Serial No. VJ". In the interests of
brevity, this report will refer to the device as the Model 54RCCS. The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will be referred to as BATFE, and the Firearms Technology
Branch of this organization will be referred to as FTB.
Table of Contents
12
18
23
26
31
1911
RIF
-. . ..
3
Any analysis of the Historic Arms Model 54RCCS Caliber Conversion System must
ultimately determine whether the device is a firearm in and of itself, a firearm frame or receiver,
or a non-firearm upper for the MIO machine gun. If the Model 54RCCS is found to be a firearm,
or a firearm frame or receiver, then two additional questions must be answered: is the Model
54RCCS a short barreled rifle? Is it a machine gun?
In preparing this report, the author was mindful of the need to provide a full and complete
explanation of the thought process and methodologies that are used to arrive at the report's
findings. In this regard, the reader is directed specifically to sections D, E, and F, as these are
the sections that are intended to address any questions about process and methodology.
From the author's perspective, questions that ask what the Model 54RCCS is or is not, are
factual questions that are able to be answered by applying engineering analysis and testing. With
that caveat in mind, this report will demonstrate 1) that the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm in
and of itself, 2) that the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm frame or receiver, and 3) that the Model
54RCCS is a non-firearm upper for the MIO machine gun that is functionally equivalent to the
standard M 10 non-firearm upper.
Since there is an existing difference of opinion as to what the Model 54RCCS is or is not, it
is important to examine the test device and test procedure used by FTB in arriving at their stated
opinion that the Model 54RCCS is a machine gun. Having made that examination, this report
will also show 4) that the FTB test device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm
frame or receiver when attached to a standard MIO non-firearm upper, 5) that the FTB test
device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver and a machine
gun when attached to any MIO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system, and
6) that the FTB test device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is designed to provide an
extraordinary level of added operational functionality to any M 10 non-firearm upper.
In
addition, the report will show 7) that any claim that the Model 54RCCS is itself a firearm, a
firearm frame or receiver, or a machine gun that is based upon the use of the FTB test device is
the outcome of a scientifically invalid test procedure, and 8) that the FTB test device consisting
of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun when attached
to the Model 54RCCS.
1912
RIF
.
4
An examination of the Model 54RCCS reveals that it is designed to be a replacement upper
for the MI 0 machine gun that attaches to the MI 0 lower receiver in the usual way and allows the
M 10 to use a different caliber cartridge. There are other replacement MI 0 uppers available on
the market, and all have been correctly classified by BATFE as non-firearms irrespective of
whether the upper has an integral feed system. Before discussing the Model 54RCCS in detail, it
is necessary to review the characteristics of the MJO machine gun.
The MIO machine gun consists of an upper housing containing the bolt, firing pin (fixed to
the bolt), barrel, recoil system, and a lower housing containing the trigger, sear, and other
components of the firing mechanism. The M 10 lower housing is usually referred to as the lower
receiver or lower. The lower receiver of the MJO is correctly classified as the regulated part by
BATFE, thus the MIO lower is a firearm, a firearm frame or receiver, and a machine gun. The
upper housing of the M 10 is usually referred to as the upper. The MI 0 upper is a non-firearm
upper that is unregulated by BATFE, hence is an accessory freely available in the marketplace
without restrictions of any kind.
The M 10 upper is open bolt in operation and relies on the energy stored in the recoil spring
to fire a cartridge. The upper employs a bolt with fixed firing pin that translates within a housing
that also contains the recoil system. The upper is open at the rear, but when attached to the MI 0
machine gun lower receiver, the lower receiver closes off the rear opening in the upper and
enables the recoil spring of the upper to be compressed. Because the M 10 upper is open at its
rear, the upper is unable to fire a single shot in and of itself in the absence of the lower, a fact
that explains the MIO upper's classification as a non-firearm upper. A simple test, conducted by
the author on 6/24/09 in Thomasville, NC, shows that if the charging handle of the MIO upper is
pulled to the rear and released with the upper detached from the lower, the bolt moves towards
the rear, the recoil buffer and recoil spring protrude from the rear of the upper and all of these
parts remain in this rearward position. All MIO non-firearm uppers, including the standard MIO
non-firearm upper, those that are caliber conv
systems, share a specific key o
preventing the upper fr
s, and those
hed feed
'onal feature: the upper housing is open at the
firing a single shot in the absence of the MI 0 machine gun lower
receiver.
ckground in mind, an examination of the Model 54RCCS shows that it is open
bolt in ope tion and relies on the energy stored in the recoil spring to fire a cartridge. The bolt
and bolt c rrier of the Model 54RCCS translate within a rectangular housing that also contains
the recoil
ring and recoil buffer. Since the Model 54RCCS housing is open at its rear unles

1913
RIP
...
.'
mated to the M 10 machine gun lower, it is not possible for the Model 54RCCS to fire in and of
itself because it is impossible to develop the required tension in the recoil spring to activate the
firing mechanism. Thus the Model 54RCCS is identical to a standard MIO non-firearm upper in
that it cannot fire a single shot in and of itself in the absence of the M 10 machine gun lower.
The design of the Model 54RCCS includes the specific key operational feature of all MIO nonfirearm uppers, namely that the upper housing is open at the rear. Consequently, the Model
54RCCS can be described as being functionally equivalent to the standard MIO non-firearm
upper.
The inability of the Model 54RCCS to fire in and of itself was physically demonstrated as
part of the testing co-witnessed by BATFE, Historic Arms, and this author on 6/10/09 in Coweta,
Georgia. On that occasion an attempt was made to cause the Model 54RCCS to fire a round from
a belt of ammunition in the absence of the MIO machine gun lower. This attempt did not result in
a shot being fired nor in any movement whatsoever of the bolt carrier or bolt due to the inability
to develop tension in the recoil spring after the charging handle was pulled to the rear. Pulling
the charging handle to the rear and releasing it simply caused the recoil spring and buffer of the
Model 54RCCS to protrude from the rear of the device and subsequently remain there at rest.
From the comparative analysis, testing, and discussion above, it is evident that the Model
54RCCS is not a firearm in and of itself because 1) it is unable to fire a shot in the absence
of the MlO machine gun lower receiver 2) it is designed to be a non-firearm upper for the
MIO machine gun, and 3) it is functionally equivalent to the standard MlO non-firearm
upper.
If we accept the three findings of the previous section, then we must logically conclude that
as is the case with the standard MIO non-firearm upper, the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm
frame or receiver. Then, since the Model 54RCCS is not firearm in and of itself, and is not a
firearm frame or receiver, we must further conclude that the Model 54RCCS cannot be either a
short barreled rifle or a machine gun. Rather, we conclude that the Model 54RCCS is
designed to be, and is, functionally equivalent to the standard MIO non-firearm upper.
Although the findings of sections B and C stand on their own merits, and are in no way
dependent on the methods, ideas, or assumptions employed in the remainder of this report,
section G will provide a more comprehensive and exhaustive analysis of the Model 54RCCS that
independently arrives at all of these same findings.
1914
RIF
t1
...
6
To clarify any source of potential confusion or debate regarding a finding in this report that
the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm frame or receiver, as well as to better understand other
sections of this report, this section analyzes The Code of Federal Regulations at 27 CFR Part
478.11 where it provides the following definition of firearm frame or receiver:
Firearm frame or receiver. That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, boll
or breechb/ock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its fonvard portion to
receive the barrel.
As will become clear in the discussion that follows, at the time of publication of this
regulation some 40 years ago, its definition of firearm frame or receiver was outdated,
technically obsolete, and of no use whatsoever if applied in a literal way to most firearms. To
comprehend this claim, consider the following.
For at least 100 years, firearm designers have found it useful to create designs for pistols,
rifles, shotguns, and machine guns that house some key operational features of the firearm in an
upper housing, and other key operational features in a lower housing. In most of these firearms
key operational features are shared, meaning the function in question is provided by a
mechanism whose parts are located in both the upper and lower. This design practice is well
known to most people familiar with firearms such as the Colt Model 1911 semi-automatic pistol.
The Model 1911 pistol has two main components: an upper housing or slide, containing the
barrel, bolt or breechblock, firing pin, and recoil spring, and a lower housing containing the
hammer, trigger and additional parts of the firing mechanism within the body of what is
essentially a grip frame.
Since its initial production nearly 100 years ago, the lower housing of the Colt 1911 has been
regarded as the firearm's receiver and hence is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives. The upper housing or slide of the Colt 1911 is not considered to be a
firearm, hence is an unregulated accessory item that may be purchased, transferred, and
possessed without restriction. One can in fact purchase a caliber conversion system for the Colt
1911 that is nothing more than a slide that incorporates changes to the barrel, bolt or
breechblock, firing pin, and recoil spring to enable the assembled pistol to operate in a different
caliber than the original 45 ACP caliber. This caliber conversion slide is not regulated by
1915
RIF
..
7
BATFE since it is a replacement slide for the Colt 1911, has the same key operational features as
the original Colt 1911 slide, is functionally equivalent to the original slide, and is not itself a
firearm.
In the rifle category, most people familiar with firearms will immediately recognize that the
AR 1S semi-automatic rifle shares with the Colt 1911 the common design element of separable
upper and lower housings. In the case of the ARIS, the upper housing, or upper, contains the
barrel, barrel extension, bolt, bolt carrier, and firing pin. The AR15 upper is not considered by
BATFE to be a firearm, hence is an accessory item that may be purchased, transferred, and
possessed without restriction. The lower housing of the ARIS, usually referred to simply as the
lower, or lower receiver, contains the hammer, trigger, and other parts of the firing mechanism as
well as the recoil system. The lower of the ARIS is regarded by BATFE as the firearm's receiver
and is therefore the regulated item. One can purchase a caliber conversion system for the ARIS
that is simply an upper that has been designed to operate in a different caliber than the original
upper. This caliber conversion upper is not regulated by BATFE since it has the same key
operational features as the original ARIS upper, is functionally equivalent to the original upper,
and is not itself a firearm.
If we now attempt to apply the definition of firearm frame or receiver as given at 27 CFR
478.11 to the Colt 191 I and ARIS we immediately perceive a substantial difficulty. The Colt
19 I I slide is considered to be a non-firearm, yet it contains the bolt or breechblock, barrel, and
the firing pin, the latter being an essential component of the firing mechanism. The Colt 1911
lower, which is considered to be the firearm frame or receiver, contains the hammer, trigger, and
other parts of the firing mechanism, but not the bolt or breechblock, or barrel. If applied
literally, the definition at 27 CFR 478.11 cannot be used to unambiguously determine which of
the two housings of this pistol is the firearm frame or receiver.
We reach a similar conclusion when we examine the ARlS to determine which part of this
rifle constitutes the firearm frame or receiver. The ARIS upper contains the barrel, barrel
extension, bolt, bolt carrier, and firing pin, with the latter an essential part of the firing
mechanism. The AR l S lower contains the hammer, trigger and other parts of the firing
mechanism, recoil system, and is considered to be the firearm frame or receiver, yet the lower
does not contain the bolt or breechblock, or barrel. We see once again that when applied literally
the definition at 27 CFR 478.11 cannot be used to unambiguously determine which of the two
housings of this rifle is the firearm frame or receiver.
1916
RIF
-.
8
The reason for making these observations about the Colt 1911 and AR 15 is to draw attention
to the fact that employing a literal reading of the definition at 27 CFR 478.11 to determine
what is, or is not, a firearm frame or receiver is simply impossible from a logical, scientific,
or engineering perspective. One can, however, apply a reasonable interpretation of the intent
of the definition of fireann frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11, and use this interpretation as part
of a comprehensive methodology that leads to logical conclusions when one is tasked with
detennining if a device is, or is not, a fireann; is or is not a firearm frame or receiver; and in the
present context, is or is not a machine gun.
In detennining intent, the language of the definition at 27 CFR 4 78.11 of fireann frame or
receiver requires care in interpretation. First and foremost, we must take note of the fact that the
definition refers to "that part of a firearm", which indicates that the tenn firearm refers to the
entire, assembled firearm in its normal configuration, and that the definition is concerned with
identifying a specific single part rather than several parts or the entire firearm. Any assertion
that a firearm of any kind has, or may have, more that one fireann frame or receiver must be
firmly rejected. Such an assertion denies the clear meaning of the language "that part", and
would create legal and regulatory confusion with respect to all existing firearms having an upper
and lower housing. This confusion, of course, arises from the fact that as is the case with the
Cotti 911 and AR 15, the firearm frame or receiver of every one of these existing firearms is a
specific single part.
Returning to the language of the definition, we see that it says "which provides housing for"
followed by a list of items. So the definition points us to a specific single part of the entire
firearm that in some manner houses, holds, encloses, or contains, those items in the list that
follows .
Continuing to analyze the definition, we next see that it makes specific reference in the list to
"hammer", "bolt'', "breechblock", "firing mechanism", and "barrel'\ but makes no attempt to
define these particular components. Although a definition of hammer, bolt, breechblock, and
barrel would not seem necessary, the inclusive term "firing mechanism" requires additional
scrutiny.
A "firing mechanism" must refer to a mechanism, which in this context is a part or collection
of parts that acting together is able to produce a desired action or function. The adjective
"firing" indicates that the action or function in question is that of causing the firearm to fire. A
hammer is certainly part of the firing mechanism of some fireanns, but not all firearms have
hammers. Some firearms have strikers rather than hammers. Other firearms use the bolt carrier
1917
RIF
..
9
to strike the firing pin. Although "hammer" occurs separately in the definition, it is unlikely that
this was done to signal an intention to distinguish "hammer" from "firing mechanism" or to
interpret "firing mechanism" in some other way. For if such an intention existed, the definition
could, for example, have made use of the words "hammer.... and triggering mechanism" instead
of "hammer. ... and firing mechanism".
Thus the meaning of "firing mechanism" must be
intended to include any and all of those parts that from a functional perspective enable a specific
fireann to fire.
The list of parts intended to be included in "firing mechanism" would therefore have to
include the striker if one is present, the bolt carrier, the bolt if the design uses the bolt to ignite
the primer, as well as the firing pin, hammer spring, trigger, trigger spring, sear, recoil spring,
safety, and the many other components of the "firing mechanism" of a given firearm. The
hammer, if one is present, is also part of the firing mechanism of a fireann, but "hammer" is
probably mentioned separately because of its prominence and ease of identification as an
essential part of the firing mechanism in older fireann designs.
Next we note that in referring to the barrel of the firearm, the definition says "and which is
usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel". A plausible interpretation here is
that the word "usually" is intended to infonn us that a firearm frame or receiver often houses,
holds, encloses, or contains, the barrel, but that in some firearm designs, the firearm frame or
receiver may not include the barrel. It seems very unlikely that "usually" is intended to refer
solely to ''threaded", i.e. to a specific way of attaching a barrel to the receiver.
Before arriving at a reasonable interpretation of intent, we must also note that since the
definition of fireann frame or receiver at CFR 478. 11 makes no mention of a feed system, the
presence or absence of a feed system in the firearm, or its specific location in a fireann
consisting of an upper and lower, cannot play any role in the identification of a firearm frame or
receiver. This enables us to conclude that in the definition, "firing mechanism" means the set of
parts that enable the fireann to fire a single shot rather than a succession of shots. That is, the
definition indicates that whether the fireann is self-loading is irrelevant to determining what
single specific part of the entire firearm is the fireann frame or receiver.
Lastly we note that if the definition is read as requiring that every item in its list of items be
housed in the firearm frame or receiver, then we would be forced to conclude that most fireanns,
and specifically the Colt 1911 and ARIS, do not have a fireann frame or receiver at all, an
outcome that surely is not intended.
1918
RIF
10
With the above discussion in mind, the impossibility of applying the definition of firearm
frame or receiver in a strictly literal way to the task of determining what is or is not a firearm
frame or receiver of most firearms ought to be clear. The design of firearms for at least the last
100 years has almost always distributed the items of interest to the definition among more than
one "housing". We cannot hope to find a housing in most firearms that contains all of the items,
and we cannot make the location of "barrel'', or "bolt or breechblock", or "firing mechanism" the
sole criterion as the examples of the Colt 1911 pistol and AR15 rifle make clear. We cannot
make the location of the "hammer" the sole criterion either, for the firearm may not have a
hammer.
The solution to this dilemma is to focus on the logical intent of the definition to identify a
single specific part for regulation, leaving all other parts as unregulated items that can be readily
replaced in the event, say, of wear and tear. Then from a scientific and engineering perspective it
is clear that the intent of definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 is to enable
one to determine what single part of the entire firearm houses, holds, encloses, or contains the
preponderance of key operational features that enable the firearm to actually fire a single shot.
Having arrived at this interpretation, logic next dictates that in making this determination for a
firearm consisting of an upper and a lower, the first and central question is whether the upper or
lower will itself fire a shot in the absence of the other part needed to complete the firearm. If the
upper is able to fire in and of itself, that part is without question a firearm, and is therefore also
the firearm frame or receiver since it is the intent of the definition to identify this single specific
part of the entire firearm . The same is true of a lower that is able to fire a single shot in and of
itself. Such a lower is a firearm and is the firearm frame or receiver. On the other hand, if
neither the upper nor lower of a firearm will fire a shot in and of itself, then the above
interpretation of the intent of the definition at 27 CFR 478.11 enables us to identify the single
part that is the firearm frame or receiver, which is to say to identify the single part that is the
firearm, and hence is the regulated part of the overall firearm.
In the interpretation suggested here, the use of "preponderance of key operational features" is
chosen to indicate that we are to avoid an emphasis on counting parts rather than on
comprehending their relative importance in the operation of firing a single shot, and that we
avoid being unduly influenced by the presence or absence, or the location of, the four
specifically named parts (hammer, bolt, breechblock, barrel), or the presence or absence, or the
locations of the many other parts are part of the "firing mechanism".
The words "key

RIP
11
design that enable the firing of a single shot. Such features may be provided by some design
element that is not a physical part. A key operational feature may for example be an opening, a
hole, a shelf etc. Where are the preponderance of these features located? From an engineering
perspective, this is a logical way to decide which single part of the firearm is the firearm frame
or receiver.
Let us now see if this approach has merit. In the case of the Colt 1911 and AR15, neither
firearm's upper will fire in the absence of the lower. Likewise, neither firearm's lower will fire
in the absence of the upper. Which part of these two firearms contains the preponderance of key
operational features that enable either fireann to actually fire a single shot? Since the Colt 1911
and AR 15 lowers contain the hammer and the hammer spring that enables the hammer to strike
the firing pin. the approach described here instructs us to identify the lowers of these two
firearms as the firearm frame or receiver, despite the presence of the barrel, bolt or breechblock,
and firing pin in the uppers.
Earlier it was claimed that if applied in a literal way to most firearms, the definition of
firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 was outdated, technically obsolete, and of no use
whatsoever. The interpretation of intent given here provides a logical and flexible approach that
enables that same definition to remain up to date, technically correct, and useful when applied to
identify the firearm frame or receiver of any firearm.
The author has developed a first comprehensive methodology that is designed to be
specifically applicable to determine the appropriate classification of machine gun uppers such as
the Model 54RCCS. The methodology yields logical and defensible results when applied to any
machine gun upper, and it clearly distinguishes non-firearm uppers from firearm uppers. In
addition, the author has developed a second comprehensive methodology based in part on the
interpretation of intent discussed above that enables one to determine whether the upper or lower
of any machine gun contains the firearm frame or receiver, a determination which is itself a
critical factor in the classification of a machine gun upper. The first of these two methodologies,
namely, the methodology to classify machine gun uppers is described and illustrated in detail in
the next section.

This section describes a methodology that may be used to determine whether a newly
designed upper for an existing machine gun is a non-firearm upper, or is itself either a firearm or
a machine gun. The process, referred to as classification, begins by assuming that a newly
1920
RIF
12
designed upper for an existing machine gun is submitted in order to be classified. It is assumed
that this existing machine gun (the host machine gun) is of the type in which the lower is
correctly classified as the regulated part, which is to say that the lower is a firearm, a firearm
frame or receiver, and a machine gun. Because of the assumption that the machine gun lower
is correctly identified as the firearm frame or receiver, this methodology to classify
machine gun uppers does not rely in any way on the interpretation of the definition of
firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 that is discussed in section D.
The use of the word correctly in two places above is both deliberate and extremely important
since a valid procedure based on engineering analysis simply cannot be constructed unless the
regulated part of the host machine gun is correctly identified. The correct classification of
machine guns themselves, i.e. the correct identification of the firearm frame or receiver, is
discussed in section F of this report. Both sections use a number of examples through out to
illustrate various elements of the respective classification methodologies. After describing the
methodology to classify machine gun uppers, it is applied in Part G specifically to the Model
54RCCS.
The ste sin the classification procedure for a machine gun upper are:
1) Determine the make and model of the machine gun for which the submitted upper is intended
(the host machine gun) so that one can review the operational and design characteristics of the
host machine gun in its original configuration, and verify that the host consists of a non-firearm
host upper and a machine gun host lower. If this is the case, the firearm frame or receiver is
contained in the machine gun host lower.
2) Next determine the key operational features of the host machine gun as related specifically to
the function of firing a single shot. For example, is the host machine gun open or closed bolt,
fixed or moveable firing pin, hammer fired or striker fired? These and other key operational
features are typically distributed within both the upper and lower, but we may logically assign
these features to the host upper for the purpose of classification of the upper.
3) After careful study of the design of the upper submitted for classification, and of its operation
when assembled to the machine gun host lower, determine whether the submitted upper is
identical, functionally equivalent, or functionally non-equivalent to the non-firearm host upper.
1921
RIP
..
13
4) If the submitted upper is identical to, or functionally equivalent to, the non-firearm host upper,
the correct classification of the submitted upper is that it is a non-firearm upper. To make this
determination, consideration must be given to the following:
4a) an identical upper is one designed to be a duplicate of the host upper. It follows that the
identical upper has exactly the same key operational features as the host upper and shares the
host upper's classification as a non-firearm upper. Cosmetic differences in an identical upper are
not significant and do not affect the determination that the submitted upper is identical. An
example of an identical upper is any OEM type replacement upper for the M 10 machine gun.
4b) a functionally equivalent upper is one that is determined to be incapable of firing a single
shot in the absence of the host lower. Note carefully that the key operational features of a
functionally equivalent upper may be identical to, or substantially different from, those of the
host upper, but by applying engineering analysis and/or testing, the submitted upper is
determined to be incapable of firing a single shot in the absence of the host lower.
This
establishes that the submitted upper is the functional equivalent of the host non-firearm upper
despite differences in design, features, and appearance.
4c) a functionally non-equivalent upper is one that is determined to be capable of firing a
single shot in the absence of the host lower irrespective of its similarity in key operational
features to the non-firearm host upper. An upper that is functionally non-equivalent is correctly
classified as a firearm, hence is also a firearm frame or receiver. Further analysis and/or testing
must be employed to determine if this firearm upper is a machine gun.
5) The process of deciding that a submitted upper is, or is not, functionally equivalent to the host
non-firearm upper may appear to be challenging. This arises from the fact that some of the key
operational features of the submitted upper may be different from the host non-firearm upper, yet
the differences have no impact
whether the submitted upper
is a non-firearm upper. The
a process that focuses
specifically on the question ofwh
s capable of firing a single shot
in the absence of the lower. For reasons to be explained in more detail in part E3, in testing a
submitted upper it is absolutely necessary to evaluate this capability when the upper alone
is manipulated as intended by the designer of the pper during normal operation of the
assembled firearm.
1922
RIF
14
The remaining parts of this section analyze a variety of examples and further explain this
process of examining a submitted upper to determine if it is identical, functionally equivalent, or
functionally non-equivalent to the host non-firearm upper.
El) Consider the many different M16 uppers that are commercially available but not
necessarily identical to the host upper delivered with a specific Ml6 machine gun from the
manufacturer.
These uppers have different barrel lengths, calibers, types of gas operation,
cocking handle location etc. All have the same key operational features of the original M 16
upper (closed bolt, moveable firing pin, hammer fired) that permit the upper to operate properly
with the M 16 lower, and consequently all of these uppers are incapable of firing a single shot in
the absence of the lower. They are all correctly classified as non-firearm uppers since they are
either identical or functionally equivalent to the host non-firearm upper.
E2) It should be carefully noted that whether a functionally equivalent upper includes a
magazine housing or other feed system that differs from, or is not present in, the host upper is of
no relevance whatsoever in determining functional equivalence. The reason, of course, is that the
feed system plays no role in enabling the upper to fire a single shot that has been manually
placed in the chamber. Moreover, logic dictates that if the functionally equivalent upper is itself
not a firearm, (because it cannot fire a single shot in and of itself, and is the functional equivalent
of the host non-firearm upper) it cannot be a machine gun. To further clarify this point, note that
the assembled machine gun is intended to fire repeatedly, hence the assembled firearm must
provide a feed mechanism of some type and in some location within the firearm to achieve this
functionality. What does not matter is whether this functionality is included in the upper or lower
of the assembled machine gun.
To illustrate this important point about the irrelevance of the presence or absence of a feed
system in a functionally equivalent upper, consider the following functionally equivalent uppers
for the host Ml 1/9 submachine gun: the Fleming-SubCal 22lr caliber conversion upper, the
Smith, and the Mendenhall uppers. Similar functionally equivalent uppers exist for the MIO
submachine gun. All of these uppers are unable to fire by themselves, have the same key
operational features as the standard Ml 1/9 or MIO non-firearm uppers, thus all are functionally
equivalent to the host non-firearm upper. The methodology of this section and the Firearms
Technology Branch of BATFE correctly classify all of these replacement uppers as non-firearm
uppers. Although the standard Ml 1/9 and MIO non-firearm uppers do not contain a magazine
housing, the cited examples of functionally equivalent replacement uppers for these machine
guns all provide a magazine housing as part of the upper. However, for the reasons given earlier,
1923
RIF
15
this provision of a feed system in the upper has no impact whatsoever on the FTB classification
since they are all non-firearm uppers.
E3) Engineering analysis is often sufficient to determine that a submitted upper is a nonfirearm upper, but in some cases physical testing may be needed to verify a conclusion. If testing
is employed to determine whether a submitted upper is capable of firing a single shot in the
absence of the host lower, the upper alone should be manipulated only as intended by the
designer during normal operation of the assembled firearm. This is a critically important point if
the intention is to construct a scientifically valid test procedure.
The person performing a test must remain aware that a test device that attaches to an upper,
or adds any parts to the upper, or which provides an external source of energy to the upper,
always affects the functionality of the upper. From an engineering perspective, whether
inadvertent or not, the use of a test device or test method of any kind that adds operational
functionality to the upper (meaning functionality that enables, assists, or allows the upper to
fire a single shot when it could not do so by itself when manipulated as the designer intended)
results in a scientifically invalid test procedure. Obviously, the use of a test device or test
method that subtracts operational functionality from the upper also results in a scientifically
invalid test procedure. The person performing a test must also recognize that in instances of
testing with added operational functionality, the parts of a test device that are added or attached
to the upper may themselves be determined to be a firearm frame or receiver, a machine gun,
both of these simultaneously, or a machine gun conversion device, depending upon the specific
test device, the type of submitted upper under test, and the procedure employed.
For example, if a test device holds a standard MIO non-firearm upper in such a way as to
close the rear end of the upper, the test device captures the recoil spring and adds to the upper
the precise operational functionality that enables a single shot to be fired by pulling the cocking
handle of the upper to the rear. It is evident that in this case, the test device is a firearm frame or
receiver, no matter how simple or innocuous the test device appears to be when viewed in
isolation. The test resu It, showing that the standard M 10 non-firearm upper is able to tire a single
shot in the absence of the M 10 lower receiver is quite clearly erroneous. In this instance it is
very easy to see that the test device provides to the upper the single most essential function of the
MIO machine gun lower receiver, which is to close the rear end of the standard MIO non-firearm
upper to allow the upper to fire a single shot. The test device itself is a firearm frame or receiver
when it holds a standard MIO non-firearm upper in the described manner. If the same test device
holds an MIO non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system, the test device is itself a
1924
RIF
16
machine gun, for it will add the operational functionality that enables the test device and nonfirearm upper as assembled to fire more that one shot when the cocking handle is pulled to the
rear and released.
E4) Two instructive examples of functionally equivalent uppers for the AR15/Ml6 are the
Ares Defense Systems Shrike belt (and magazine) fed upper, and the BRP Guns XMG belt fed
upper. These two uppers have the same key operational features as the standard AR15/Ml6 nonfirearm upper (closed bolt, moveable firing pin, hammer fired), and both uppers incorporate feed
systems that are absent in the host non-firearm upper that they replace. Both uppers are totally
incapable of firing a single shot in the absence of the AR15/Ml6 lower. The FTB classification
of the Shrike upper is unknown, but applying the methodology to classify machine gun uppers
shows that the Shrike is a non-firearm upper. Applying the methodology to the XMG belt fed
upper leads to the conclusion that the XMG is also a non-firearm upper, yet FTB has classified
the XMG upper as a firearm. Is this a correct classification? The methodology demonstrates that
the answer is unequivocally no.
One possible explanation for FTB's erroneous classification of the XMG upper lies in the
fact that the XMG upper, unlike the host AR15 /Ml6 upper, contains the recoil system in the
upper.
In addition, the rear end of the XMG upper is closed, while the rear end of the
AR15/Ml6 upper is open. Thus pulling back on the charging handle of the XMG upper will
cycle the bolt and bolt carrier through their normal range of operation, and even feed a round
into the chamber. Nevertheless, because the XMG upper is closed bolt, moveable firing pin, and
hammer fired, the XMG upper will not fire a single shot when separated from the AR IS /Mt 6
lower receiver. Thus the XMG is functionally equivalent to the host AR15/Ml6 upper, and the
placement of the recoil spring in the XMG upper and its closed rear end enabling tension on that
spring are of no functional significance in the determination that the XMG is a non-firea
upper.
A second possible explanation for the erroneous classification of the XMG upper is that it is
designed to be very similar in appearance to the MG34 belt-fed machine gun. This point is
explored further in section F, part F4 of this report following a detailed exam ination of the
MG34.
ES) If a submitted upper has key operational features that are fundamentally different from
the host non-firearm upper, the submitted upper must be carefully analyzed to arrive at a correct
classification. The key point of this analysis is to determine first whether the upper itself meets
the test of being a firearm, i.e. will the upper fire a single shot in the absence of the lower when
1925
RIP
..
17
the upper alone is manipulated as intended by the designer during normal operation of the
assembled firearm. If the upper is determined to be a non-firearm, either by analysis or by
appropriate testing of its ability to fire a single shot, the key operational features of the upper are
irrelevant, as are differences in feed systems and other features. On the other hand, if the upper
is determined to be a firearm because it is able to fire a single shot by itself, further analysis is
necessary to determine if it is also a machine gun.
E6) For example, consider a standard MIO upper that has been modified so that the rear
opening of the upper is closed. If this closed end upper is submitted for classification, the
methodology or a simple test would immediately ascertain that the closed end upper will by
itself fire a single shot when the bolt handle is pulled to the rear and released with a cartridge
loaded in the chamber. This occurs because when the bolt handle is pulled to the rear and
released, the recoil spring is compressed against the rear closure of the upper itself, thereby
enabling the bolt with its fixed firing pin to move forward under recoil spring tension and fire a
single cartridge placed in the chamber. Thus a closed end MIO upper otherwise identical to a
standard M 10 non-fireann upper is correctly classified as a firearm. Because this closed end
upper also contains an opening in its bottom to admit the magazine normally held in the MIO
machine gun lower, the closed end upper is also correctly classified as a machine gun. For
obvious reasons, a closed end MI 0 upper that does not have the magazine opening in its bottom
would be a firearm but not a machine gun.
E7) When the methodology previously outlined is fully comprehended, the classification of a
submitted machine gun upper is a straightforward, rational, and scientifically based process that
will withstand scrutiny. It is important to note that as stated and emphasized previously, the
underlying assumption of this methodology for classifying machine gun uppers is that the host
machine gun lower is correctly classified as the regulated part, i.e. as the firearm frame or
receiver. This is unfortunately not always the case with existing BATFE classifications, as will
be demonstrated in the discussion of the next section. Moreover, in the case of a firearm of a
new or unfamiliar design, a classification of the firearm may have never been performed by FTB.
By employing the logical approach taken in the development of the methodology to classify
machine gun uppers, and making use of the interpretation of intent of the definition of firearm
frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 given in section D, the author has constructed a
methodology to identify the controlled part of any machine gun having a design that includes an
upper and a lower. This methodology to classify machine guns is described in the next section.
1926
RIF
..
18

This section describes a methodology that may be used to independently verify that the
identification of the firearm frame or receiver of a machine gun whose design consists of an
upper and lower is correct. It is presented here because a correct classification of a machine gun
upper using the methodology of the last section cannot be obtained if the firearm frame or
receiver of the machine gun is not correctly identified. This methodology to classify machine
guns relies on the interpretation of the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR
478.11 tbatisdiscussedinsectionD.

The steps in a classification procedure for a machine gun consisting of upper and lower
~/
CL
I) Determine whether the upper of the submitted machine gun is able to fire a single shot in the
absence of the lower. If the upper is able to fire a single shot in the absence of the lower, the
upper is a firearm, is the firearm frame or receiver, and is also a machine gun since the
assembled firearm is known to fire automatically. In some cases the upper that fires a single shot
in the absence of the lower will also fire automatically in the absence of the lower, thereby
demonstrating that the upper is indeed the machine gun. If the lower is able to fire in the
absence of the upper, the lower is the firearm, the firearm frame or receiver, and the machine
gun. If neither the upper nor the lower will fire a single shot in the absence of the other then
further steps are needed to identify which of the two is the firearm frame or receiver, hence is the
firearm and the machine gun.
2) Review the operational and design characteristics of the machine gun to identify the key
operational features of the machine gun that enable it to fire a single shot and determine where
those features are located with respect to the upper and the lower. Key operational features are
typically distributed within both the upper and lower, but it is typically not difficult to arrive at a
logical assignment of their location for the purpose of conducting the next step.
3) After a careful study of the key operational features and their locations, determine whether the
upper or lower contains the preponderance of key operational features that enable the assembled
upper and lower to function as a firearm, meaning specifically the ability to fire a single shot.
1927
RIP
19
4) Classify the component of the machine gun containing the preponderance of key operational
features as the firearm frame or receiver, the firearm, and the machine gun.
The remaining parts of this section provide examples and discussion to further explain the
methodology to classify machine guns.
Fl) To illustrate the thought process of this methodology, consider first the Ml6 machine
gun. The upper of an Ml6 cannot fire a single shot in the absence of the lower when manipulated
alone according to designer intent. We already know that the Ml 6 upper itself can be correctly
classified as a non-firearm upper using the methodology to classify machine gun uppers of
section E, but our interest here is to classify the M 16 itself independently of that conclusion.
Looking at the M 16 lower, one initially comes to the same conclusion regarding the lower: it too
cannot fire a single shot on its own. This seems paradoxical, and may tempt the unwary to
conclude that focusing on the ability to fire a single shot is unwarranted. However, since the
upper typically contains the barrel, that focus provides a means of tentatively eliminating the
upper from consideration as the regulated part, and further discussion throughout this section
will hopefully demonstrate why this is helpful. Using the interpretation of the intent of the
definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 as developed in section D, it is quite
clear that the preponderance of key operational features that enable the assembled M 16 upper
and lower to function together as a firearm, i.e. to fire a single shot, are provided in the lower.
One need only point to the presence of the hammer and the rest of the M 16 firing mechanism
other than the firing pin in the lower to support this contention. Thus sound engineering
principles support a conclusion that the M 16 lower is correctly classified as the firearm frame or
receiver, the firearm, and the machine gun. Once the M16 lower is correctly classified, we can
use the methodology to classify machine gun uppers of section E to classify the M 16 upper as a
non-firearm upper.
F2) Next consider the MlO machine gun. Because the MIO upper is open at the back, an MIO
upper will not fire despite being open bolt and having a fixed firing pin. This is because in the
absence of the lower there is no recoil spring tension to close the bolt and fire a cartridge placed
in the chamber. The MIO upper is therefore not itself a firearm, and by the same test, neither is
the MIO lower. However, the MIO lower is correctly classified as the firearm frame or receiver
because of the preponderance test. Note that in applying the preponderance test, it must first be
noted that in an open bolt firearm the recoil spring is a part of the firing mechanism. Secondly,
the recoil spring must have a fixed terminus to bear against in order to develop tension in the
1928
RIF
..
20
spring when the bolt moves to the rear. From an engineering perspective this fixed terminus
is a critical part of the firing mechanism and hence is a key operational feature of the Ml 0.
Although the recoil system of the MIO resides partly in the lower and partly in the upper, the
fixed terminus is entirely in the lower, along with the other parts of the firing mechanism. Thus
the firing mechanism of the MIO is predominantly contained in the lower. It is clear that the
preponderance of key operational features of the M 10 machine gun are located in the lower.
Thus the MIO lower is correctly classified as the firearm, the firearm frame or receiver, and the
machine gun. With that fact established, the M 10 upper is easily classified as a non-firearm
upper using the methodology to classify machine gun uppers of section E.
The rear closure of the upper that is provided by the M 10 lower, i.e. the fixed terminus for
the recoil spring, is absolutely necessary for an assembled MI 0 to fire. Thus the location of the
fixed terminus in the MI 0 lower is heavily weighted in the decision process that arrives at an
assignment of the preponderance of key operational features to the lower.

F3) For another instructive example, consider the MG34 and MG42 belt fed machine guns
Both are open bolt, moveable firing pin, striker fired upon bolt entering battery, firearms. Tues
are the key operational features. The MG42 upper is a single housing that contains the barrr
bolt, and recoil system. The MG34 upper, however, has a front portion that contains the barrel
and a rear portion that contains the bolt and recoil system. These two upper portions can be
separated from one another, but that feature is irrelevant to the present discussion and we may
simply refer to the MG34 as having an upper rather than two uppers. (This closer look at the
MG34 design should reinforce the earlier argument that it is simply not possible to apply the
definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 in a literal way.)
The upper of each machine gun contains the bolt and recoil spring, but part of the firing
mechanism is contained in the lower (i.e. in the grip stick). With the respective lower removed,
the MG34 and MG42 each will fire a single shot placed in the chamber if the bolt is retracted
and released, hence the upper of each is a firearm and is correctly labeled by BATFE as the
regulated part i.e. as the firearm frame or receiver. The ability of these uppers to fire a single
shot is the critical factor in the classification process for these fireanns, and the presence of parts
of the firing mechanism in the lower is of no significance. The fixed terminus of these two open
bolt firearms is in the upper. Since the uppers of the MG34 and MG42 will fire a single shot
when manipulated as the designer intended, the uppers of these machine guns are correctly
classified as firearms. There is no need for a preponderance test once the regulated part, i.e. the
firearm frame or receiver is clearly and unambiguously identified. That the MG34 and MG42
1929
RIP
..
21
uppers are also machine guns follows of course from the provision of a feed mechanism in their
respective uppers and the fact that they will fire continuously until the ammunition is exhausted
without the grip stick attached. The MG34 and MG42 lowers are non-firearm Jowers.
F4) If we briefly reconsider the XMG belt fed upper discussed previously in section E, part
E4, we see that the above analysis of the MG34 is helpful in revealing that while the XMG upper
shares some of the features of the MG34, including the belt feed system, enclosed recoil system,
and two piece upper, and closely resembles the MG34 in outward appearance, the XMG upper is
fundamentally different in design and function from the MG34. The XMG upper will not fire as
the MG34 does in the absence of the corresponding lower. Thus the XMG upper is clearly a nonfirearm upper for the AR 15/M 16 as previously determined.
F5) Another worthwhile example of the use of the methodology to classify machine guns is
found in the Uzi submachine gun. The Uzi has an upper and lower, and roughly resembles a
MtO submachine gun in external appearance.
We previously determined in part F2 of this
section that the MIO lower is the firearm because the MIO upper is a non-firearm, and the MIO
lower contains the preponderance of key operational features.
At first glance it may seem
surprising to learn that the upper of the Uzi is correctly classified as the regulated part even
though the Uzi lower contains the greatest number of parts of the firing mechanism and hence
may plausibly pass the preponderance test. Is the classification of the UZI upper as the regulated
part correct? The answer is yes, and this example demonstrates why it is important to examine
the ability of the upper to fire a shot before applying a preponderance test.
In the absence of the lower, if the bolt of an Uzi upper is pulled back and released with a
single cartridge in the chamber, the upper will fire. The upper itself is therefore a firearm and
hence is immediately and correctly classified as the regulated part. There is no need to consider
the preponderance test. Note here that in testing the Uzi upper, we describe pulling the bolt back
rather than pulling the cocking handle back. This is deliberate. Later versions of the Uzi had a
ratcheting top cover as a safety mechanism. That ratchet would prevent the bolt from moving
forward when the cocking handle is released. This feature is of no consequence to the required
test, however, since the top cover is not part of the upper, and pulling the bolt back does produce
a manipulation of the firing action of the upper as intended by the designer.
Now, how are MIO and Uzi submachine gun uppers able to function so differently? The
answer is that the Uzi upper is closed at its rear, thereby providing a fixed terminus for the recoil
spring in the upper itself that allows the recoil spring to function to drive the bolt home in the
absence of the lower. In the M10 upper, the rear end of the upper is open and the recoil spring
1930
RIF
22
cannot function in the absence of the fixed terminus provided by the lower. Thus in the Uzi
submachine gun the firearm frame or receiver is the upper, in the MIO submachine gun the
firearm frame or receiver is the lower.
F6) The methodology to classify machine guns easily identifies longstanding errors in the
BATFE classification of machine guns. Consider the PPSh-41 submachine gun, a firearm
produced by the former Soviet Union in vast quantities nearly 70 years ago. The upper of the
PPSh-41 holds the barrel, and, interestingly, this is the only key operational feature that can be
assigned to the upper from an engineering perspective. The lower of this machine gun contains
the bolt, ejector, magazine housing, and recoil spring, provides the recoil spring with a fixed
terminus, and provides a mount for the selective fire trigger group and stock. The upper cannot
fire a single shot in the absence of the lower, and the preponderance of key operational features
are unmistakably in the lower. Thus the lower receiver of the PPh-41 is a firearm, a firearm
frame or receiver, and a machine gun. BATFE classifies the upper of the PPSh-41 as the
firearm . Is this a correct classification? Engineering analysis shows that the answer is no, and
this incorrect classification appears impossible to defend by any test, engineering analysis,
logical process, or any reading of the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11.
The most probable explanation for BATFE' s incorrect classification is that the PPSh-41 's upper
happens to be where the Soviets stamped the firearm's serial number.
F7) As a final example that illustrates how an erroneous conclusion can be reached in the
absence of careful engineering analysis and a comprehensive methodology to classify machine
guns, consider the RPO belt-fed machine gun. This machine gun is open bolt, with a moveable
firing pin that is struck as the bolt enters battery. The recoil spring, its fixed terminus, and the
fire control mechanism of the RPO are entirely in the lower. BATFE classifies the RPO upper as
the firearm, most likely because that is where the serial number is located. Is this a correct
classification? Applying the methodology to classify machine guns, we quickly and easily
establish that the RPO upper cannot fire a single round in the absence of the lower when
manipulated as the designer intended. The reason for this is that the RPO recoil spring and its
fixed terminus are contained in the lower. Pulling the bolt back on an RPO upper in the absence
of the lower does not result in any forward motion of the bolt upon release. Therefore the RPO
upper is a non-firearm upper, and it is quite clear that the preponderance of key operational
features that enable the assembled upper and lower of an RPO to function as a firearm are in the
lower. Thus there is no doubt that the RPO lower is a firearm frame or receiver, a firearm, and a
machine gun.
1931
RIF
..
23
F8) In the introduction to section E, it was pointed out that it is impossible to have a valid
procedure for classifying machine gun uppers unless one has correctly identified the regulated
part of the host machine gun. The examples and discussion of this section demonstrate that the
methodology to classify machine guns can accomplish this important task. When employed
together, the two comprehensive methodologies, namely, the methodology to classify
machine gun uppers and the methodology to classify machine guns provide a scientifically
rigorous classification process for machine gun uppers and for machine guns themselves.

In this section, the methodology to classify machine gun uppers (section E) is applied
specifically to the Model 54 RCCS. As a reminder, this methodology does not rely in any way
on the interpretation of the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 that is
discussed in section D.
Consequently the findings of the classification of the Model
54RCCS in this section do not depend on that interpretation.
Step 1) Determine the make and model of the machine gun for which the submitted upper i(b)(5) - Attorney Work Product
intended: The Model 54RCCS is an upper for the MIO machine gun. The host machine gu
namely the M 10, consists of a non-firearm upper and the BATFE regulated machine gun low
receiver. The firearm frame or receiver of the MIO is the MIO machine gun lower. These a
correct classifications by BATFE of the M 10 upper and lower as can be independently verifie
by an application of the two methodologies presented in this report.
Step 2) Next determine the key operational features of the host machine gun as related
specifically to the function of firing a single cartridge The MIO machine gun is an open bolt,
fixed firing pin design in which the bolt is driven forward by the recoil spring. The fixed
terminus for the recoil spring is in the MIO lower.
Step 3) After careful study of the design of the upper submitted for classification. and of its
operation when assembled to the machine gun host lower. determine whether the submitted
upper is identical. functionally eguivalent. or functionally non-eguivalent to the non-firearm host
upper:
The Model 54RCCS is a gas operated upper for the MIO machine gun in caliber
7.62x54R. The upper employs a rectangular housing that mounts a belt feed system, barrel and
1932
RIP
..
24
gas system, and contains the bolt, bolt carrier, recoil spring, and recoil buffer. The firing pin is
fixed to the bolt carrier and moves forward to strike the primer after the bolt enters battery. The
Model 54RCCS is open at its rear and must be attached to the MIO machine gun lower receiver
for the recoil spring to be put in tension. The fixed terminus for the Model 54RCCS recoil spring
is in the MIO lower receiver.
Comparing the key operational features of the Model 54RCCS to those of the host MIO nonfirearm upper reveals one minor difference. While both uppers are open bolt, the Model 54RCCS
employs a firing pin fixed to the bolt carrier. The MIO host upper employs a firing pin fixed to
the bolt. The bolts of both uppers are driven forward by the recoil spring to fire a cartridge. Both
uppers rely on the fixed terminus for the recoil spring provided by the MIO machine gun lower
receiver. Other features of the two uppers that are not key operational features are that the
Model 54RCCS employs belt feed while the MIO host upper employs magazine feed to provide
cartridges for successive shots. The Model 54 RCCS is gas operated after the first shot, the MI 0
is recoil operated after the first shot.
An examination of the Model 54RCCS shows that it relies on the energy stored in the recoil
spring to fire a single shot. The bolt and bolt carrier of the Model 54RCCS translate within a
rectangular housing that also contains the recoil spring and recoil buffer. Since the rear of the
Model 54RCCS is open, it is not possible for the Model 54RCCS to fire when it is separated
from the M 10 lower and manipulated as the designer intended. This is because the opening at
the rear of the Model 54RCCS makes it impossible to develop the required tension in the recoil
spring to close the bolt or activate the moveable firing pin. The absence of a fixed terminus in
the upper is a design feature shared by the Model 54RCCS and all other known MIO non-firearm
uppers. The MIO lower contains the fixed terminus for the recoil spring of the Model 54RCCS.
Thus an engineering analysis demonstrates that the Model 54RCCS cannot fire a single
shot in the absence of the MlO machine gun lower.
The inability of the Model 54RCCS to fire a single shot in the absence of the MIO lower was
demonstrated as part of the testing co-witnessed by BATFE, Historic Arms, and this author on
6/10/09 in Coweta, Georgia. On that occasion an attempt was made to cause the Model 54RCCS
to fire a round from a belt of ammunition in the absence of the MI 0 machine gun lower. This
attempt did not result in a shot being fired nor in any forward movement whatsoever of the bolt
carrier or bolt. This was due to the inability to develop tension in the recoil spring after the
charging handle was pulled to the rear. Pulling the charging handle to the rear and releasing it
simply caused the recoil spring and buffer of the Model 54RCCS to protrude from the rear of the
1933
RIF
25
device and along with the bolt, bolt carrier, and firing pin, subsequently remain at rest. The
testing confirms the previous finding that the Model 54RCCS is unable to fire a single shot in
the absence of the host MIO machine gun lower.
The engineering analysis described earlier shows that the Model 54RCCS is not an identical
upper to the MIO non-firearm upper in that its key operational features do differ in a minor way
from those of the host MIO non-firearm upper. However, the examination does show that the
Model 54RCCS is a functionally equivalent upper for the MIO machine gun in that it will not
fire a single shot in the absence of the M 10 lower. Thus the Model 54RCCS is functionally
equivalent to the host MIO non-firearm upper.
Step 4) If the submitted upper is identical to, or functionally equivalent to, the non-firearm host
upper, the correct classification of the submitted upper is that it is a non-firearm upper.
Based upon the methodology to classify machine gun uppers, the Model 54RCCS is
functionally equivalent to the host MIO non-firearm upper, thus the correct classification
of the Model 54RCCS is that it is a non-firearm upper for the MIO machine gun. The
Model 54RCCS is therefore not a firearm frame or receiver, it is not a short barreled rifle,
and it is not a machine gun.

This report would be incomplete if it failed to examine the FTB test device itself as well as
the test procedure employed by FTB to arrive at their finding that the Model 54RCCS is a
machine gun. This section will demonstrate that the FTB test device consisting of a chain,
turnbuckle, and plate used by FTB during the testing on 4/15/09, and during the co-witnessed
testing by FTB and Historic Arms on 6/10/09, both in Coweta, Georgia, is the source of that
erroneous finding. The engineering analysis that arrives at this conclusion is confirmed by the
co-witnessed testing on 6/10/09, as well as by additional testing using the FTB test device
conducted by Historic Arms on 6/10/09 and witnessed by this author, and testing conducted b
JL
the author on 6/24/09.
This section will first show that the FTB test device is itself l) a firearm frame or receiver
when that test device is attached to a standard MIO non-firearm upper, and 2) a firearm frame or
receiver and machine gun when that test device is attached to any MIO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm
upper that has an integral feed system.
1934
RIP
..
26
Beginning with the first statement above, observation shows that when the test device is
attached to the standard MIO upper, it encloses the upper in such a way that the FTB test device
closes the opening at the rear of the upper and allows the recoil spring within the upper to be put (b)(5) - Attorney Work Product
in a state of compression when the cocking handle is pulled to the rear. Stated in engineering
terms, when the test device is attached to the standard MIO upper, it provides a fixed terminus
for the recoil spring contained in the upper. In doing so, the test device exactly duplicates the
most critical function of the MIO machine gun lower receiver, which is also to provide a fixed
terminus for the recoil spring contained in the upper. With the FTB test device attached to a
standard MIO non-firearm upper, the upper will fire a single shot if a cartridge is placed in the
chamber and the operating handle pulled to the rear. Therefore, from an engineering perspective,
when the FTB test device is attached to a standard MI 0 non-firearm upper, the test device is
itself a firearm frame or receiver since it functions as a simple but effective replacement for the
MIO machine gun lower receiver.
In this configuration the FTB test device satisfies the
definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11 in exactly the same manner that the
MIO machine gun lower receiver satisfies this definition. However, the FTB test device is not a
machine gun because the assembly consisting of the test device attached to a standard M 10 nonfirearm upper is only able to fire a single shot without manual reloading.
A first test conducted by Historic Arms on 6/10/09 using the FTB test device consisted of
attaching the FTB test device to a standard MIO non-firearm upper, loading a single 45 ACP
cartridge in the chamber, and pulling the operating handle to the rear. The assembly consisting of
the test device attached to a standard MIO non-firearm upper fired one shot, confirming the
finding of the engineering analysis described above. Thus the FTB test device is itself a
firearm frame or receiver when it is attached to a standard MlO non-firearm upper.

As to the second statement earlier, that the FTB test device is itself a firearm frame or
receiver and a machine gun when it is attached to any M 10 or M 1119 non-firearm upper that has
an integral feed system, observation shows that the FTB test device encloses any MIO or Ml 1/9
non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system in such a way that when the test device is the
attached to the upper, the test device closes the opening at the rear end of all of these uppers
thereby allowing tension to be developed in their respective recoil spring. That is, the FTB test
device provides a fixed terminus for the recoil spring contained in these uppers. With the test
device attached to any of these uppers, the upper will fire a single shot if a cartridge is placed in
the chamber and the operating handle pulled to the rear. Therefore, when attached to any of these
uppers, the test device is itself a firearm frame or receiver since it functions as a simple but
1935
RIP
27
effective replacement for the respective MIO or MJ 1/9 lower receiver. In this configuration the
FTB test device satisfies the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478. I J in exactly
the same manner that the MI 0 machine gun lower receiver satisfies this definition. Additionally,
any MJO or MJJ/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system to which the FTB test
device is attached will fire repeatedly if the feed system is loaded with ammunition and the
charging handle pulled to the rear and released. Therefore, from an engineering perspective,
when attached to any MJO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system, the FTB
test device is itself a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun since it functions as a simple
but effective replacement for the respective MJO or Ml 1/9 machine gun lower receiver in
enabling fully automatic fire.
A second test conducted by Historic Arms on 6/10/09 consisted of attaching the FTB test
device to a Fleming SubCal Ml 1/9 caliber conversion upper having an integral magazine feed
system. This upper is correctly classified by the methodology to classify machine gun uppers
and BATFE as a non-firearm upper. After inserting a magazine containing multiple 22 Long
Rifle cartridges into the magazine well of the upper, the operating handle was pulled to the rear.
The assembly consisting of the test device attached to the SubCal upper fired repeatedly until the
magazine was empty, confirming the finding of the engineering analysis described above.
Although the SubCal upper was the only upper tested by Historic Arms on 6/10/09, we may infer
with certainty that the FTB test device will operate as a machine gun when attached to any other
MIO or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed device. Thus the FfB test device is
itself a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun when it is attached to any MIO or
Mll/9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system.
The first two findings of this section show that the FTB test device consisting of a chain,
turnbuckle, and plate adds an extraordinary level of added operational functionality to any M 10
or Ml 1/9 non-firearm upper to which it is attached. In fact, from an engineering perspective,
there is no doubt whatsoever that the FfB test device is designed to provide an extraordinary
level of added operational functionality to any MIO non-firearm upper to which it is

attached. The added operational functionality provided by the FTB test device is, of course, to
supply a fixed terminus for the recoil spring by closing the opening at the rear of the non-firearm
upper. It is this opening on all MIO non-firearm uppers, including the Model 54RCCS, that
prevents them from firing a single shot in the absence of the MIO machine gun lower.
It is vitally important at this juncture to recall that in discussing the methodology to classify
machine gun uppers, a warning was given in section E, part E3, that
1936
RIF
28
the use of a test device or test method of any kind that adds operational functionality to the
upper (meaning functionality that enables, assists, or allows the upper to fire a single shot when
it could not do so by itself when manipulated as the designer intended) is a scientifically invalid
test procedure.
In light of the findings of this section with regard to the standard M JO non-firearm upper and
the Ml 1/9 SubCal non-firearm upper, there can be no doubt that when attached to these uppers
the FTB test device provides such an extraordinary level of added operational functionality, i.e.
the fixed terminus, that any ensuing claim that either of these uppers is itself a firearm, a firearm
frame or receiver, or a machine gun is completely erroneous.
If we now examine the assembly consisting of the FTB test device attached to the Model
54RCCS, observation shows that the test device encloses the Model 54RCCS in such a way that
it closes the opening at the rear end of the Model 54RCCS thereby allowing tension to be
developed in the latter's recoil spring. That is, the FTB test device provides a fixed terminus for
the recoil spring contained in the Model 54RCCS. This analysis is confirmed by the cowitnessed testing on 6/10/09.
In one co-witnessed test, an attempt was made to cause the Model 54RCCS to fire a round
from a belt of ammunition by itself. As expected, this attempt did not result in a shot being fired
nor in any movement whatsoever of the bolt carrier or bolt of the Model 54RCCS due to the
inability to develop tension in the recoil spring after the charging handle was pulled to the rear.
Pulling the charging handle to the rear and releasing it simply caused the recoil spring and buffer
of the Model 54RCCS to protrude from the rear of the device and subsequently remain there at
rest. This test confirms that the Model 54RCCS will not fire at all in the absence of a fixed
terminus for its recoil spring.
In a 4115/09 test, the Model 54 RCCS was attached to a M 10 machine gun lower receiver
that had been stripped of all fire control parts. A short belt of ammunition was loaded into the
Model 54RCCS and the cocking handle pulled to the rear and released. As designed, the Model
54RCCS fired more than one shot in this arrangement. The fact that this occurred is not
surprising, as the stripped MIO lower receiver contains the fixed terminus that is required by the
Model 54RCCS in order to fire. In a simple test conducted by the author on 6/24/09 in
Thomasville, NC, a standard MIO non-firearm upper was attached to a stripped MIO machine
gun lower receiver, a magazine of ammunition was inserted into the MIO lower, and the cocking
1937
RIF
,
29
handle pulled to the rear. The MIO non-fireann upper fired repeatedly until the ammunition was
exhausted. In both tests, that with the Model 54RCCS and that with the standard MI 0 nonfirearm upper, the sole function of the M 10 lower receiver is to supply the fixed terminus which
all MIO uppers require in order to fire singly or repeatedly. In analyzing these tests, we must
recall that all uppers for the M 10 machine gun must logically be able to fire repeatedly when
attached to the MI 0 machine gun lower receiver. The fact that the Model 54RCCS has this
capability should not surprise. The above analysis and 4/15/09 and 6/10/09 tests of the Model
54RCCS demonstrate conclusively that the Model 54RCCS cannot fire singly or repeatedly
unless it is attached to an MIO machine gun lower or to some other device that specifically
provides the required fixed terminus for the recoil spring of the Model 54RCCS.
In a second co-witnessed test, the FTB test device was attached to the Model 54RCCS, a
short belt of ammunition was loaded, and the operating handle was pulled to the rear. As
expected, the Model 54RCCS fired more than once. This co-witnessed test demonstrates
conclusively that the FTB test device does indeed provide the critically important fixed terminus
needed to enable the Model 54RCCS to fire single or repeatedly.
From the above engineering analysis, the analyses with respect to the standard M 10 nonfirearm upper and Mt 1/9 SubCal non-fireann upper, and from the finding that the FTB test
device is designed to add a fixed terminus to any MIO upper, including the Model 54RCCS, it is
evident that any claim that the Model 54RCCS is itself a firearm, a firearm frame or
receiver, or a machine gun that is based upon the use of the FTB test device is the outcome
of a scientifically invalid test procedure.
It should be noted that this last finding does not depend in any way upon agreement or lack
of agreement with the finding of section G that the Model 54RCCS is an MIO non-firearm upper,
nor on agreement or lack of agreement with the findings that the FTB test device is itself a
firearm frame or receiver and/or machine gun in the configurations described earlier in this
section. The finding with regard to a scientifically invalid test procedure depends solely on the
fact that we are able to demonstrate that the test procedure employs a test device that adds
operational functionality to the device to which it is attached. Indeed, there can be no doubt that
the FTB test device provides an extraordinary level of added operational functionality to all M 10
uppers by providing a fixed terminus for their recoil springs.
In reviewing the analysis and testing discussed previously in this section, it is evident that
from an engineering perspective, the FTB test device and the stripped M 10 machine gun lower
receiver are functionally identical devices when attached to the Model 54RCCS.
1938
In this
RIF
.'
30
configuration the FTB test device satisfies the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR
478.11 in exactly the same manner that the stripped MIO machine gun lower receiver satisfies
this definition. Therefore, when attached to the Model 54RCCS, the FTB test device functions
as a simple but effective replacement for the MI 0 machine gun lower receiver in enabling fully
automatic fire. Thus the FTB test device is a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun
when it is attached to the Model 54RCCS.

The principle findings of this report as developed in sections B, C, and G with regard to the
Model 54RCCS are, 1} that the Model 54RCCS is not a firearm in and of itself, 2) that the Model
54RCCS is not a firearm frame or receiver, and 3) that the Model 54RCCS is a non-firearm
upper for the M 10 machine gun that is functionally equivalent to the standard MI 0 non-firearm
upper. These three findings are the result of engineering analysis and testing in sections B and
C, and they are also arrived at independently by applying the methodology to classify machine
gun uppers to the Model 54RCCS as described in section G of this report. These findings do not
depend in any way on the definition of firearm frame or receiver at 27 CFR 478.11, nor on the
interpretation of the intent of that definition as given in section D, because we know a priori that
the MI 0 lower receiver is the firearm frame or receiver. For this reason, the three findings do
not depend or derive from the methodology to classify machine guns described in section F, as
this methodology is not needed to classify the MIO machine gun. Lastly, these three findings in
regard to the Model 54RCCS do not in any way depend on or rely on the findings in section H
with regard to the FTB test device and test procedure.
The principle findings of section H with regard to the FTB test device are 4) that the FTB test
device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver when attached
to a standard MlO non-firearm upper, 5) that the FTB test device consisting of a chain,
turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver and a machine gun when attached to any
MI 0 or M 11 /9 non-firearm upper that has an integral feed system, 6) that the FTB test device
consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is designed to provide an extraordinary level
added operational functionality to any MIO non-firearm upper, 7) that any claim that the Model
54RCCS is itself a firearm, a firearm frame or receiver, or a machine gun that is based upon the
use of the FTB test device is the outcome of a scientifically invalid test procedure, and 8) that the
FTB test device consisting of a chain, turnbuckle, and plate is a firearm frame or receiver and a
machine gun when attached to the Model 54RCCS.
1939
RIP
These findings also
~eserve
31
brief comment. None of these findings with regard to the FTB
test device depend in any way on agreement with the findings with regard to the Model 54RCCS.
While there may be disagreement over the specific legal characterization of the FTB test device
in findings 4, 5, and 8, there can be no disagreement among engineers or anyone else familiar
with the design of mechanical devices over finding 6, which relates to how the FTB test device is
designed to function, and does function when it is attached to the cited uppers. Lastly, for an
engineer, in regards to finding 7, it is hard to imagine a more badly flawed test procedure than
that created by attaching the FTB test device to the Model 54RCCS.
The classification of the Model 54RCCS upper by FTB as a machine gun is simply incorrect.
It should come as no surprise that absent a comprehensive methodology, FTB's reliance upon the
use of ad-hoc classification procedures, upon appearance, and upon the inadvertent or advertent
use of a test device that provides an extraordinary level of added operational functionality to any
M 10 upper results in an erroneous conclusion.
1940
RIF
...

county sheriffs range. The ATF provided video documentation of a previous test

MachinegunRegistered ReceiverUpper ReceiverLower receiverControlled fireUncontrolled fire-

recoil device.

1941
RIF
..
test fire the unit.
PKM). The fully_.a
atic internal arts of the
achinegun could not .be
substituted into the Historic
s unit without substantial machinin
n
t&-the-full-automatic internal parts or e tstor
rms unit.

1942
RIP
testing.
The first test conducted used a MAC 1O upper receiver for a registered
pulled to the rearward position and released. The upper fired 2 consecutive
control MAC 1O upper machinegun receiver was attached to a semi automatic
and the bolt pulled to the rearward position and released. The upper fired the
the MAC 10 registered machinegun to fire 22 rim fire ammunition. The feed
1943
RIF
'
round.
Test Findings
MAC 10 machinegun upper receiver classi ed as NOT being a firearm or
tions in the s
xact f(b)(5) - Attorney Work Product
machinegun), the Histo
control upp
Per accepted scientific and engineering practic
glh edition or numerous other scientific and engineering
compare to a control test for validation of results. Without contr
ting to validate findings, the testing procedures are co red
inval1
suits irrelevant.
(MAC 10 machinegun upper) and the Historic Arms unit.
1944
RIP
considered to be a firearm by the ATF. The Historic Arm (b)(5) - Attorney Work Product
available ammunition in an uncontr
ion
ed function of the added parts for A 's
duplica the function of the registered receiver with the fire control parts
rem ed. The aluminum plate duplicated the rear section of a regist red receiver
by apturing the recoil in the operating rod. The section of chain ecures the
al minum plate in the same manner the side rails of a registered rec iver secure
t e rear plate. The tensioning bolt attaches the chain (via tightenin against the
~ rward gas piston) to the unit in the same way the forward trunio (attachment
oint between the upper and lower receivers) attaches the registe d lower to the
nit. The sandbags create a hold position to substitute for th egistered lower
r eiver handgrip. In duplicating the function of a register
receiver, the test
wa expected to duplicate the results of using a registe
receiver with the fire
contr parts removed. The test did produce the anf ated results. The function
of the re tered receiver was duplicated.
This point is
a ed when the exact same testing procedure
(b)(5) - Attorney Work Product induce full automatic fire in and of themselves? In recent rulings by the ATF, the
addition of a simple shoe string to a title one firearm (a conventiQnal semi
fnore complicated system of added parts would also be considered a conversion
the ac7
o Is not unlawful based on ATF's consideration here.
1945
RIP
.
Conclusion:
conversion device (as defined in ATF Policy Clarification Letter CC-43, 723
(b) (6)
P.E.

(b) (6)
Associate
, P.E.; C.B.S.I.

York, PA 17402
P. (b) (6)
F.(b) (6)
M. (b) (6)
mailto:(b) (6)
1946
RIP
1947
RIF
Photo 3- Left side of Historic Anns unit with added parts
Photo 4- Historic Anns unit with chain wrapped around the forward grip
1948
RIF
.,
Photo 5- front view of Historic Arms unit with added parts
Photo 6- Full auto bolt on left and Historic Arms bolt on right
1949
RIF
'\
,J
......
<
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY '

llUREl'U OF ALCOHOL. TOBACCO AND F'IRl!AAMll
WASHINGTON, D.C. .tOiH
LK:l":'l'E:EMO
3311.4
MAY 11 l'tm
Kr. Willi H .Pleain9
Fl-inq F.1.rearms, Ini:s.

7720 Kast 126 StJ:eet North
Collin~vii~e, ~ltl~hOlll& 74021
Dear Hr. P1aaillg:
~-
1950
RIF
[OCR conversion with cleanup of letter obtained via FOIA.]

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
~ASHINGTON, DC 20226
[symbols redacted]
JUL 23 1996
Narae
Redacted]
Address Redacted]
City. ST Zip Redacted]
Dear [Redacted]
This is in respc>nse to your letter of recent date, to

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). In
your letter, you request classificatiun of a device
which you have designed to work on your semiautomatic
firearms. You have also submitted a sample of the
device for our exanination.
Title 18 united states code (u.s.c.), chapter 44,
transfer or manufacturer [sic] a machinegun which was not
registered in accordance with the provisions of the
National Fireams Act (NFA) prior to tolay 19, 1986.
A.s defined in Title 26 u.s.c., chapter 53, 5845(b),
of the NFA, the term "machinegun" means any "'eapon
trig9er. The term shall also incluae the frame or
receiver of a!"Y such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination of
weapon into a machinegun, and any ce>mpbination of parts
from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts
[approximately 8 lines of text redacted througn the
end of this page]
1951
RIF
-2[Natne Redacted]
(approxi ~ately
th1 s page]
7 lines of text redacted at the top of

detenained that they are auxiliary trigger mechanisms
which are designed and intended for use in converting a
se1Diautomatic rifle into a machinegun; therefore, they
are machineguns as defined in 584S{b). Based upon
our exanrination of the submitted device and the
infonaation you provided, it is our opinion that the
sample device is also an auxiliary trig~er mechanism
alld a ''raa.chinegun" as defined in the th1 rd paragraph of
this letter.
It is unlawful for anyone to make, P-Ossess, or transfer

a machinegun which is not registered in accordance with
the provisions of the NFA. since we are unable to
and ~ 922(0), we are unable to return it to you, as
subantted. However, we can return your shoe string
without the loops.
The shoe string which you submitted (less the loops) is

being returned under separate cover.
we regret that we are unable to respond more favorably
at the ~resen~ tirae. If you have further questions
concerning this matter, please contact us.
sincerely yours,
[Signature of official Redacted]
[Hane of official Redacted]
Chief, Firearms Technology Bran~h
1952
RIF
U.S. Deportment Df JustJce

Bureau of Alcohol. Tob:icc:o.
Firearms and Explosivl!1
SEP 8 0 2004
9030SO (b)
(6)
331112004-379
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
Dea
(b)(3) - 26 U.S.C. 6103
This rcfc:rs to your le\ler of February 6, 2004, to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firc:irms and
Exploshes (ATF), Fin:anns Technology Branch (FTB}, in which you inquired about 1he legality
of a small SCC:lion of siring inti:ndcd for USC 115 B means ror increasing the cycling rate or Q
scmi11u1omatic rine.
As you may be aware, the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 584S(b), defines Mmachinegun" to
..any w~pon that shoois, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored 10 shoot, 11u1omatically mon:
than one shol, wilhout manual reloading. by a single function oflhc tri~. This term shall also include
the fr:imc or rec:eivi:r of any JUch "'C!:lpon, any part dcslpetl aatl latntlnl liOlely anti cxclasivcly, or
combin11tlon af p11rt1 tleslgnHI 11nd lateadcd, ror use In ca.vertlag a wHpon lato a machlaq:un, and
any combination of puts from which 11 m:ichincgvn can be assembled if llUCh P3f1S arc in the ponc:uion
or under 1he control o( II person [holding 11ddcd).
In 1996, FTB examined and clwilied a 14inch long shoestring with a loop al each end. The
siring was attllchcd to the cocking handle of a semiautomatic rifle and was looped around the
trigger and 111111chcd lo the shooter's finger. The device caused the weapon to lire repeatedly
until linger pressure was released from Che string. Because this item was designed and intended
to convert a scmiautoma1ic rifle into a machinegun, FTB determined that ii wa.~ a maehlnqun
as defined in 26 U.S.C. S84S(b).
We thank you for your inquiry, regret thc delay in response, and trust the foregoing has been
responsive.
Sincerely yo~.
s:~/
Sterling lhton
1953
RIP
..
Page l of l
DEPARTKtN'; OF Ttl& TRASUR'i
Bureau ot Alcohol, Tobaicco and F1rn:i

JUN 1 1994
l;C43,123 FE:JBP
HEHOR>.NDUH TO: Spec ial Agent in Cbar9a

Detro!t Field Divlaion
Associate Chief Counl
(firearms J\nd E.xploaives l
SUB~:
Policy Cla:itication - Convraion Kita
This is in response to your request tor an opinion whether a

machine conversion kit i tire.rn. tor
purpo~es
cf th Gun
Control ~t of 1i68 (GCll.J , lB u.s.c. Chapter 44. You advise that

thl opinion la sou9ht by the United States District Court tor the
&astern District ot Kichigan.
For purpt>ea ot tho GCA, tho te<lll "tireana ia defined in 18
section 921 (a) (3) to mean:
u.s.c.
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or 1

designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile
by the action ot an explo1ive1 CBI the tra&e or receiver or
any such weapon; (C) any fi:ean:i mut!ler or firearm allencer1
or CDI any destructive device
conversion kita are not a:ong the it.,.. defined
!!rear= by section 921(&) !JI. Therefore, ,..chine gun coneraion
kits are not subject to regulation aa firear.ns under the GCA. For
exaapla, a person angagd in th buaina o! dealing only in 1ueh
kits would not be required to obtain a licenae a daler in
!irear:no undar th GCA. Alao, a parson who tranafarrad a
m.achine;un converaion kit to a felon or other peraon prohibited
!ra:t reoiving er poaaoaaing !iraanos would not violet 18 u.s.c.
ction 922(d), nor would the prabibited person's raceipt or
poaaeaion ot th kit violate lB U.S.C. section ;22[9).
Hchine9~n
- 2 -
Special llqent in Char;e

O.tro1t Field 01viaion
HoweYer, machinagun conversion kits Ir within the definition of
roachino9un for purpo of the GCA and r, therefore, subject to
all Gell. control impoa9d upon "machine911na. For GCA purposes, the
definition of "machinegun in lB u.s.c. ~tion 921() (231
incorporates the definition of such ter111 in the National Firearms
Act, 2' u.s.c. section S84S(b). As defined by action SB4S(bl,
"machinegun mean, aaong other thin91, any combination of
parts designed and intend&d, !or uae in convertin; a weapon into a
cachinegun, i.e., a DAcbine;un conversion kit. rhus, under the
Gell, a i:achine9W1 conYeraion kit is, tor exacple, a 11&ch1ne9un
1ubject to the prohibition with rPct to poaaesaion and transfer
of machin9Un in lB U.s.C. ao<::tion 922[ol and tho prohibition in
lB U.S.C, section Cal (4) aqainst tranapo:ting machine;una
interatate without the approval o! tha Secretary o! the Treasury.
Pleaae adi ae if you have any questions regarding thi s opinion.
ld11nedJ
Jack B. Patterson
hnp://www.cs.cmu.cdufafs/cs/uscr/wbardwd/public/nfalist/atf_letter37.txt
1954
6/1812009
RIF
903050:MMK
3311/2008-472
Mr. Len Savage

Historic Arms, LLC
1486 Cherry Road
Franklin, Georgia 3021 7
Dear Mr. Savage:
This refers to your letter of April 21, 2008, to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB), Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), regarding a submitted prototype. Your
submission is a modified PKM-type, 7 .62x54R caliber machinegun receiver assembly, which
you have designated the Model 54RCCS. serial number VJ. You request verification that the

Submitted Sample
Historic Arms LLC, Model: 54RCCB, Serial No.: V1
1955
RIF
-2-
Mr. Len Savage

HISTORIC ARMS LLC
FRANKLIN GA
54RCCS 7.62x54R
SERIAL
No - Vt
EA-141
1976
photos, below):
1956
RIF
-3Mr. Len Savage
YugoM-&t
PKMType
Serial No.; V1
1957
RIF
-4-
Mr. Len Savage
PKM~TYpe
receiver
1958
RIF
-5Mr. Len Savage

P.KMType, normal ~ piston/bolt assembly
MRCCS, moQJned piston/bolt assembly
machinegun sear.
P.KM-Type
Modified Bolt-Carrier Assembly
1959
RIF
-6-
Mr. Len Savage
Gulde-rail slot
plate (from stock), approximately 1-1/4 inch x 1 inch and approximately 311 6 inch thick, was
1960
RIF
-7Mr. Len Savage
aluminum plate.
to be utilized in initiating the automatic firing sequence of the PK.M-type machinegun receiver.
1961
RIF
-8Mr. Len Savage
In conclusion, FTB found that the "Model 54RCCS, serial number Vl" submitted with your
u.s.c. 5845(b).
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely yours,
John R. Spencer
1962
RIF
Page 1of3
(b) (6)
From:
(b) (6)
Sent:
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:53 AM
To:
(b) (6)
Cc:
Spencer, John R.
Subject: RE: Attention: John Spencer
I am responding to his letter but it will be a few weeks before I get to it.
(b) (6)
Assistant Chief
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:41 AM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Spencer, John R.; (b) (6)
(b)(5) - Deliberative Process Privilege; Attorney Client Privilege; Attorney Work Product
(b) (6)
Department of Justice
Office of Chief Counsel
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:20 AM
To: Spencer, John R.
Cc: (b) (6)
(b) (6) what do you think?
From: Spencer, John R.

sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:04 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Attention: John Spencer
Gentlemen,
Update from Mr. Savage concerning the FNC ruling.
John R. Spencer
From: ten savage [mailto:lensavag@bellsouth.net]
71712009
1963
RIP
Page 2of3
Posted At: Saturday, May 31, 2008 10:02 AM
Posted To: fire_tech
Conversation: Attention: John Spencer
Subject: Attention: John Spencer
Mr. John R. Spencer

Chief, Fireanns Technology Branch
244 Needy Rd.
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I am contacting you regarding ATF Rul. 2008-1, and how it relates to a previous product inquiry by myself and my
company.
Specifically in the ruling ATF stated:
"In order to install a registered FNC sear into a host FNC rifle, a hole must be drilled into the lower assembly and a
portion of the solid area of the lower assembly between the magazine well and the compartment for the trigger
mechanism must be milled out. If the lower assembly were to be classified as the receiver, any such modifications
would create new machinegun receiver, potentially in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(0) (prohibiting the transfer or
possession of a machinegun except for official Federal, State, or local government use)."
ATF further stated:
"Reclassification of the upper assembly as the receiver will also allow the continued installation of a law full y
registered sear into an FNC rifle because no modification to the receiver, which is the upper assembly, is required to
properly install the sear."
In closing ATF states:
"To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any previous ATF classifications, they are hereby superseded."
I am referring a guidance document issued by Fireanns Technology Branch on April 20, 2006 [document control
number: 903050:RV 331 1/2006-358}. I had contacted FTB about the permanent installation of registered conversion
device in several models of Historic Arms LLC semiautomatic fireanns.
The guidance document issued on April 20, 2006 is inconsistent with the new ruling. The two main objections noted at
that time were:
"Manufacture of this host trigger device would constitute the manufacture of a new and uniquely designed
machinegun".
It must be noted that the submitted "host trigger device" was nothing more than the "lower" from a semiautomatic
BREN that was modified to accept the "Broadhead Armory conversion trigger" that is a registered machinegun in and
of it's self. The actual modification requires less machining than a FNC lower to accept a conversion device outlined
in guidance document ATF Ruling 2008-1 .
Y "The Ml I conversion trigger is a trigger that has been designed to convert an open bolt semiautomatic Ml 1 into a
machinegun"
71712009
1964
RIF
Page 3of3
I must point out ATF Ruling 82-8 that very clearly states that ALL open bolt semiautomatic Ml 1 type firearms are
ALL machineguns. Those manufactured prior to June 21, 1982 are exempt from NFA and GCA purview, to quote:
"shall not be applied". As a machinegun, they do not require a conversion device.
When the guidance document ATF Ruling 2008-1 is applied to the guidance document April 20 2006 it is inconsistent,
[and superseded?].
Specifically: Is the modification of the "lower" or "trigger housing" [no receiver modifications] to install the lawfully
possessed and registered "Broadhead Armory M 11 conversion trigger" in Historic Arms LLC semiautomatic firearms
[Models: SGMB, RPO, BREN, and MAG-58] now lawful? Is the complete firearm also lawful?
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Len Savage
7/7/2009
1965
RIF
Page 1 of;
(b) (6)
From:
Spencer, John R.
Sent:
Friday, July 18, 2008 8:56 AM
To:
Cc:
(b) (6)
Subject:
FW: I received your ultimatum
Attachments: ATF ultimatum.pdf
Good Morning All,

FTB has received a response from Historic Arms.
Mr.; Savage has declined our offer to register his machinegun.
John R. Spencer
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 8:11 AM
To: Spencer, John R.
Subject: FW: I received your ultimatum
FYI
(b) (6)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: len savage [mailto:lensavag@bellsouth.net]
Posted At: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:19 PM
Conversation: I received your ultimatum
Subject: I received your ultimatum
Acting Director Sullivan,

Mr. John R. Spencer
244 Needy Rd.
Your letter (331112008-642) of July 22, 2008 informs Historic Arms LLC (hereafter the Company) that you are
unwilling to consider re-examination and re-testing of the submitted fireann serial number VI. It was submitted by th
Company to confirm that is was correctly registered and a request was made for it's return upon completion of such
confinnation.
Upon manufacture, the Company registered Serial Number VI as a short barrel rifle on the ATF Fonn 2 "Notice of
Manufacture" as is required by statute and regulations. On April 21, 2008 Serial Number VI was shipped to FTB fo1
verification that the Company was compliant with the registration requirements and in confonnity with its classificati1
71712009
1966
RIP
Page 2 of2
as short barrel rifle. Your claim that it was improperly registered based on your use and addition of separate devices
not submitted the Company, that are NFA firearms themselves, conversion devices, is self serving and specious.
As you are aware, the Company had no notice of a dispute in its classification of the questioned firearm as a short
barrel rifle until June 10, 2008 letter (3311/2008-471) was received by the Company on June 16, 2008. That letter
proclaimed that serial number Vl was classified as a machinegun for two reasons:
1). It is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the
trigger.; and,
2). It is readily restorable to shoot automatically.
With all due respect, I reject the first reason out of hand. The firearm, serial number VI, was designed by the Compan:;y
with specific intent to prevent more than one shot with single function of the trigger.
Equally meritless is your ..readily restorable" characterizations of serial number VI. 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.
Restored is a word which not further defined in statute or regulation. Websters Dictionary defines restore as a
transitive verb meaning to I) to renew, rebuild, alter; 2) to put back into existence or use; 3) to bring back into former
or original state. 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. To apply any meaning to your explanation for
classifying serial number Vl as a machinegun, That is more than mere distinction -It is a real difference which raises a
separate controversy, albeit one in which your argument is equally flawed.
It is most gracious of you to again offer the Company an opportunity to register the firearm, serial number VI, as a
machinegun. However, I reject that offer as inappropriate in that it has the potential to expose the Company to criminal
liability or adverse civil action against the license. The Company would be pleased to reconsider the offer if it were
accompanied with a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution or adverse civil action against the licensee.
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 VI, will afford the opportunity 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.
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.
Respectfully,
Len Savage,
President,
Historic Ann LCC
717/2009
1967
RIF
Page I of3
(b) (6)
Cc:
(b) (6)
Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:09 PM
(b) (6)
Spencer, John R.; (b) (6)
Subject:
FW:
From:
Sent:
To:
Importance: High
From: Spencer, John R.
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:03 PM

To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW:
Importance: High
In case you have not seen this
John R. Spencer
Posted At: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 10:28 AM
Posted To: Lawsuits
Conversation:
subject:
Importance: High
Acting Director Sullivan
Chief John Spencer
Asst. Chief (b) (6)
Your e-mail of July 7th has been received. I am glad your are reviewing my correspondence outlining a gross error in
guidance document #3311/2008-472.
Your e-mail communication also states "FTB /Jas been instructed to /10/d your property u11til proper registration /Jas
been completed by you witll tlle National Firearms Act Branc/1."
This statement has me gravely concerned on two levels. First, FTB is not recognizing the fact that an error may have
occurred at FTB. Secondly, FTB is ignoring the fact that this firearm was properly registered with the NFA branch of
the ATF.
I must point out that the above statement is clear and reliable proof that you refuse to even consider human error occurs
at FTB. There were far more errors in the guidance document #3 311/2008-472 than were addressed in my
correspondence. I had wrote them off to Firearms Enforcement Officer (b) (6)
order to be more specific:
inexperience with firearms. In
The firearm was made from sections of a destroyed semiautomatic PKM receiver made by "Wise Lite Arms'', not
a machinegun PKM receiver.
7/9/2009
1968
RIP
Page 2 of3
The document claims parts and portions have been removed when in fact this was a ground up construction,
nothing was removed at anytime from this firearm, only added by me the manufacturer.
The document hints at but fails to note that other than the feed device, no other PKM part or component will fit
on or in the submitted firearm.
The document contains photos on pages three and four show clearly that the submitted firearm receiver design is
unique from the PKM machinegun receiver, but fail to note that fact in the text.
Although a photograph of the "Calico Upper", [classified a non firearm by FTB] was supplied with the submitted
firearm, no comparative analysis was ever noted in the document.
Since you are being instructed to hold my property, and fail to explain who is instructing you, I would respectfully ask
that you share the following information with those persons "instructing you":
was assigned to a position of authority over me five months after
Firearms Enforcement Officer (b) (6)
testifying against him in US v. Olofson. This appearance of impropriety is clear to anyone, the onus is on FTB at
this point.
There is a prior pattern ofFTB actions that is supported by clear and reliable documentation that after or during
my participation in the Federal District Court cases that FTB/ATF should consider 18 USC, section 242.
"Whoever, under color ofany law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation ofany rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws ofthe United States,"
My submitted firearm was properly registered with the NFA Branch of the ATF. FTB is "holding" my property.
I have demanded my property back, under the "color of authority" FTB is refusing to return my property
claiming it is "not properly registered", when if fact you could instruct the NFA branch to put a "hold" on any
lawful transfer, and return my property immediately. This would prevent any sales at the moment while the
noted errors by FTB are addressed administratively by the acting Director of the BATFE.
When the FTB guidance document #331112008-4 72 is compared to FTB guidance document #331112004-3 79
there is clear and reliable evidence that FTB did not comply with "Agency Good Guidance Practices" set forth
by Office of the President of the United States, and mandated by him in signed executive orders.
It appears that FTB is not aware of the "2007 Courtroom Security Act", I was a witness in Federal District
Court.
In summary, 1.) The submitted firearm was not made from a machinegun, is not a machinegun, and is my property, that
I want returned immediately. 2.) Assignment of (b) (6)
after a very heated and public trial less than six months
post trial appears improper. 3.) The choice of FTB to install several versions of a "conversion device" in order to
induce full auto fire are clear and reliable evidence that they were contrived to deny my constitutional rights as
evidenced by the document #3311/2004-379 as well as the other "shoestring letters" by FTB. 4.) FTB is clearly in
violation of 18 USC, section 242 as documents by FTB have clearly and reliably proven. 5.) FTB is clearly violating
the mandates of the Office of President of the United States Agency Good Guidance Practices as evidenced by FTB
documents.
I look forward to your continued communication.
Respectfully,
Len Savage
7/912009
1969
RIP
Page 3 of3
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
"fire_tech" <fire_tech@atf.gov> O Save Address D Reminder

<lensavag@bellsouth.net>
Reference Urgent Request I Phone Calls
Monday, July 07, 2008 5:50:51 PM [Yiew Source]
Mr. Savage,
FTB's response to your last written request concerning letter #3311/2008-472 is being reviewed.
FTB has been instructed to hold your property until proper registration has been completed by you
with the National Firearms Act Branch.
Please contact NFA at (304) 616-4500.
Mr. Spencer will provide you with FTB's response once the review process has been completed.
Thanks for contacting FTBI
71912009
1970
RIF
Page 2 of;
Cc: (b) (6)

Sent: Wed Jul 23 09:26:06 2008
Subject: Len Savage Forfeiture
DAD Chait has decided that this forfeiture should be commenced in the Atlanta Field Division. (b) (6) Acting SAC (b) (6) indicatec
that GS (b) (6)
will be the POC for the AFD.
(b) (6)
ATF Associate Chief Counsel
(Disclosure, Forfeiture & Criminal law)
U.S. Dept. of Justice
99 New York Avenue NE
Rm. 6E~41
Washington,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
DC 20226
-work
-cell
-fax
WARNING: 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 attorney-client 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
pennission of sender 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

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:19 PM
To: fire_tech; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)

Subject: I received your ultimatum
Acting Director Sullivan,
Mr. John R. Spencer
244 Needy Rd.
Your letter (33 I I/2008-642) of July 22, 2008 informs Historic Arms LLC (hereafter the Company) that you are
unwilling to consider re-examination and re-testing of the submitted firearm serial number VI. It was submitted by the
Company to confirm that is was correctly registered and a request was made for it's return upon completion of such
confirmation.
Upon manufacture, the Company registered Serial Number VI as a short barrel rifle on the ATF Form 2 ''Notice of
Manufacture" as is required by statute and regulations. On April 21, 2008 Serial Number VI was shipped to FTB for
verification that the Company was compliant with the registration requirements and in conformity with its classification
as short barrel rifle. Your claim that it was improperly registered based on your use and addition of separate devices
not submitted the Company, that are NFA firearms themselves, conversion devices, is self serving and specious.
As you are aware, the Company had no notice of a dispute in its classification of the questioned firearm as a short
barrel rifle until June 10, 2008 letter (3311/2008-47I) was received by the Company on June 16, 2008. That letter
proclaimed that serial number VI was classified as a machinegun for two reasons:
1). It is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the
trigger.; and,
2). It is readily restorable to shoot automatically.
7/9/2009
1971
RIP
Page 3of3
With all due respect, I reject the first reason out of hand. The firearm, serial number VI, was designed by the Company
with specific intent to prevent more than one shot with single function of the trigger.
Equally meritless is your "readily restorable'' characterizations of serial number VI. 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.
Restored is a word which not further defined in statute or regulation. Websters Dictionary defines restore as a
transitive verb meaning to 1) to renew, rebuild, alter; 2) to put back into existence or use; 3) to bring back into former
or original state. 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. To apply any meaning to your explanation for
classifying serial number VI as a machinegun, That is more than mere distinction -It is a real difference which raises a
separate controversy, albeit one in which your argument is equally flawed.
It is most gracious of you to again offer the Company an opportunity to register the firearm, serial number VI, as a
machinegun. However, I reject that offer as inappropriate in that it has the potential to expose the Company to criminal
liability or adverse civil action against the license. The Company would be pleased to reconsider the offer if it were
accompanied with a grant of immunity from criminal prosecution or adverse civil action against the licensee.
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 VI, will afford the opportunity 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.
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.
Respectfully,
Len Savage,
President,
Historic Arm LCC
71912009
1972
RIF
FW: Email
Page I of 3
(b) (6)
From:
Gant, Gregory K.
Sent:
Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:25 AM
(b) (6)
Subject: FW: Mr Savage is proposing that we classify it as an AOW
To:
Tracking:
Recipient
Read
(b) (6)
Read: 6/'25/2009 9:03 AM
Oregory K. Qant
Special Agent In Charge
ATF, Atlanta Field Division
Office (b) (6)
Direct (b) (6)
Mobile (b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Spencer, John R.; Gant, Gregory K.;
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Subject: Mr Savage is proposing that we classify it as an AOW
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Some information
FYI
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Some information
(b) (6)
I am still waiting on BRP Corp. to send me the PDF of the FTB classification letter of 11 firearm 11 for the XMG upper. I
will forward it as soon as I receive it.
As to yesterdays discussion of the possible compromise, I am willing, and found this documentation that would support
it.
This change was published to bring "gadget devices" under the NFA as "Any Other Weapon"
Federal Register I Vol. 70, No. 66 /Thursday, April 7, 2005 /Proposed Rules, pg. 17624
7/8/2009
1973
RIP
FW: Email
Page 2of3
can be found at:

b.tm://www.atf.gov/fonns/notices/05-6932.pAf
4 79.11 Meaning of terms.
* ** *
Pistol. (a) A weapon originally

designed, made, and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more
barrels when held in one hand, and
having( I) A chamber(s) as an integral part(s)
of, or permanently aligned with, the
bore(s); and
(2) A short fixed stock designed to be
gripped by one hand and at an angle to
and extending below the line of the
bore(s).
(b) The term shall not include any
weapon disguised to look like an item
other than a firearm, such as a pengun,
wallet gun, belt buckle gun, pager gun
or gydget device, or any gun that fires
more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the
trigger.
[Please note that my product, the submitted firearm, as with the XMG, or the Flemming Upper11 does not fire in any
way unless installed on a registered machinegun. The testing criteria that FTB applied is considered by them in other
documents (written by FTB) to be a 11 conversion device", a machinegun in itself.]
For a DOJ background report on the NFRTR that may be of use in showing how the submitted firearm would be
regulated under the considered compromise:
httP-:l/www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/A TF/e0706/back.htm
I hope this information is of assistance to you. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully,
Len
--------------Original message from (b) (6)
--------------
Attempt#2 ...
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:14 PM

To: 'lensavage@bellsouth.net'
Subject: Email
Len, I received your message and was able to look at the brpguns.com site.
7/8/2009
1974
RIP
FW: Email
Page 3 of3
Thanks,
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
I Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney's Office I Northern District of Georgia
600 U.S. Courthouse
I 75 Spring St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
(phone) (b) (6)
I (fax) (b) (6)
(Email) (b) (6)
7/8/2009
1975
RIP
Page 1 of:
\rJ~
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
Friday, January 30, 2009 10:03 AM
Sent:
(b) (6)
To:
Subject: RE: Len Savage Response (Second Hand)
From:
ALL replacement and caliber conversion uppers for the MAC family of machineguns are "OPEN BOLT" in operation.
All of these without exception would fail the A TF's contrived test. Even the plain jane stock O.E.M. would fail. If I took the tape and ziptie route
that ATF demonstrated in detail and put that on the stock unit, I have a zip gun, just as illegal, same prison kind of crime. It converted the upper
into a fireann. This "test" will tum any upper that has a feed device into not only a fireann, but a machinegun.
(b) (6)
Division Counsel
Washington Field Division
140 I H Street, NW #900
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)
sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:43 AM

To: (b) (6)
I guess that clears you! Read the comments below.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner-y2009m 1d28-Arrested-development-in-Georgia-gun-case
PS Call me when you get a chance and I will tell you about the (b) (6) hearing on Tuesday!
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (6) where was this conversation taking place? I didn't see it on subguns.
(b) (6)
Division Counsel
Washington Field Division
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireanns and Explosives
140 I H Street, NW #900
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
(b) (6)
7/8/2009
1976
RIP
Page 2 of~
Cc: (b) (6)
Thanks
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 8:31 AM
To: (b) (6)
Spencer, John R.;
(b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: Len Savage Response (Second Hand)
(b) (6)
This pertains to the forfeiture case.
(b) (6)
Firearms Enforcement Officer
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives
244 Needy Road
Office: (b) (6)
Fax: (b) (6)
7/8/2009
1977
RIP
Page 1 of
(b) (6)
From:
(b) (6)
Sent:
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:11 AM
To:
Subject: FW: Attention: Mr. John Spencer, (b) (6)

Tracking: Recipient
Delivery
Read
Spencer, John R. Delivered: 6/10/2008 10:11 AM Read: 6/10/2008 10:12 AM

(b) (6)
FYI
Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2008 8:24 PM
Conversation: Attention: Mr. John Spencer, (b) (6)
Subject: Attention: Mr. John Spencer, (b) (6)
John and
(b) (6)
I am sending you this suggestion sent to me, I got permission from the
sender to share with you. Please take the time to look it over. This
really would solve some things on both ATF's end and for the industry.
Is this possible within the A TF?
I would like to call you this Wednesday if possible, as I also need to

speak with you concerning the the submitted firearm currently under
review by FTB. What time would be most convenient for me to call?
I do appreciate the open communication both of you have maintained.

Reasoned discourse is certainly the most positive step for all parties
concerned.
Respectfully,
Len
-------------- Forwarded Message: -------------From: "KTO" <info@ktordnance.com>
To: "len savage" <lensavag@bellsouth.net>
71712009
1978
RIP
Page 2 of
Subject: RE: Purposed definition of 921 (a)3: "readily be converted".

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21 :39:27 +0000
Please do. I would also be happy to talk (maybe a 3 way with you) them.
-----Original Message----From: len savage [mailto:lensavag@bellsouth.net]

Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:21 PM
To:KTO
Subject: Re: Purposed definition of 921(a)3: "readily be converted".
(b) (6)
I think you have a suggestion that should be discussed with
ATF, as it has merit. Currently the new FTB Chief, Mr. John
Spencer is very pleasant to speak with. Also, I have had an
"Open Dialog" with both Mr. Spencer and (b) (6)
the
Assistant Chief, at least we can try.
With your permission I would like to forward your e-mail to
them?
Len
-------------- Original message from "KTO"

<info@ktordnance.com>: --------------
OK, legally, how does this look? I do not know how to

right "Law" but here is my attempt.
Len, as a machinist, what do you think, did I leave
something out?
I propose we submit this to the BATFE (really it should
be Congress), in person, and see if we can work this out,
before going to court to have 921 ruled constitutional
vague (let them know that is our next step).
(b) (6)
7/7/2009
1979
RIP
Page 3 of
USC 921
(3) The term "firearm" means
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;
the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
any destructive device. Such term does not include an
antique firearm.
Purposed definition of: "readily be converted".
(3-1) The term "readily be converted" means:
the adding or changing of part(s) that do not require
alteration by the "machining" of the frame or
receiver, or as described in subparagraph (3-1 D)
to make the device expel a projectile by the action
of an explosive. [Note: This is holding to the
"readily be converted" in sub section 4(C) below.]
"Machining" means: the use of commonly found
household power tools (files not included), and or
machine shop specific machinery.
"Threaded holes/studs" means: threaded holes may
have the tap drill hole "pre-existing", but no
threads, studs may have the "stud size" with no
threads.
"Machining" does not consist of: resizing, filing,
reaming, enlarging, reducing, or filing of "preexisting" holes, slots, features, or parts to fit them.
[Note: this is so you cannot just open-up a hole,
file the slide rails, or any other simple alteration to
expel a projectile, you must "machine" it.]
Center drill/center punch/indexing marks are not
considered "pre-existing holes" as described in
subparagraph (3-1 D) unless marks penetrate to
create a hole. The "light" test should be used, if
you can see light, then it is "pre-existing" hole.
(4) The term "destructive device" means71712009
1980
RIF
Page 4 of'
{A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas(i) bomb,

{ii) grenade,
{iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four
ounces,
{iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of
more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
{vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the
preceding clauses;
{B) any type of weapon {other than a shotgun or a
shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is
generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting
purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which
may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the
action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has
any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in
diameter; and
{C) any combination of parts either designed or intended
for use in converting any device into any destructive
device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from
which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term "destructive device" shall not include any device
which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a
weapon; any device, although originally designed for use
as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling,
pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device;
surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary
of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684
(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 1O; or any other device which
the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a
weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner
intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural
purposes.
717/2009
1981
RIF
2008-06~ 16
(b) (6)
08:26
p 1
706-676-0287 Home
706-675-0818 Shop
June 16, 2008
Mr. John R. Spencer

244 Needy Rd.
Martinsburg. WV 25405
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I received the Fircanns Technology Branch's (FTB) guidance document [903050:MMK
331112008-472] referring to the latest submission by my company, Historic Anns, I.LC, for u
proposed product, a firearm of original design. Thi!; fireann has been designed as a
sbon-barreled rifle, because its barrel is less than 16 inches in length, and thus falls under
purview of the National Fircanns Act (NFA), and must be registered in the National Fireanns
Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR).
I am concerned about the apparent lack of a written standard used to examine and test our
submitted firearm. lt appears that our submitted firearm was initially tested according to one set
of criteria, and that FTB detennined and verified that it is a firearm because it fired a projectile.
{see page 6}.
Since it fires a projectile. has a barrel less than 16 inches in length, and according lo FTB (see
page 7} is intended to use the shoulder stock and pistol grip of MAC-type registered machinegun
in which it is installed, it is a short-barreled rifle according to ATF regulations and United States
Code. The submitted firearm was registered in the NFRTR by my company as a short-barreled
rifle via an ATF Fonn 2 prior to submission to FTB.
Our concern is that FTB was apparently dissatisfied with the results of the first live fire test.
because FTB changed the testing criteria and live fire tested the submitted firearm again. The
new criteria for this second live fire test [sec page 7. second paragraph] cannot be found in any of
our company's engineeriog books or manuals, and does not appear to be a valid scientific testing
procedure, for the following reasons:
Using a foreisn object to cause a fireann to fire fully automatic has historically been viewed
by ATF to be a ..conversion device; under the reasoning that the foreign object converts the
firearm to a machinegun. One example of the use of such a foreign object is the use of a
shoestring, memorialized by ATF/FTB in three different Letter Rulings.
There is no valid and reliable evidence that the new criteria FTB has been universally applied
to all MAC-type uppers. In fact. several MAC-type uppers incorporate an ammunition feed
1982
RIP
2008-06-16 08:27
p 214
(b) (6)
device on the "upper.., as does the fireann submitted by Historic Anns, LLC. If the criteria
FTB applied to the testing of our latest submission was applied to temng 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 firing.
Such fully automatic firing under these conditions - tenned "sputter fire" because it is
wtcontrol1ed firing -- is dangerous.
On page 4, a sample MAC-10 upper is shown. ATF does not consider this sample MAC-10
upper to be a firearm; consequently, no fonn 4473 or NTCS check duril'lg over the counter
sales is required; and there is no requirement for this MAC-10 upper to be serial numbered.
IfFfB tested this sample MAC-10 upper using the same criteria FTB used to test the firearm
submitted by Historic Arms, LLC, the sample MAC-10 upper would fire a projectile.
Acoording to ATF regulations and United States Code, the sample MAC-1 Oupper is,
therefore, a firearm. Since ATF does not consider a MAC-I 0 upper to be a firearm. the
materials that FTB added during the second test of the ruearm submitted by Historic Arms,
LLC (aluminum plate, chain and tensioning bolts) must be a firearm. fireann receiver, or a
device intended to convert a firearm to a machinegun.
Also, importantly, jfFTB applied the the first test it applied to the firearm submitted by
Historic Arms, LLC to the sample MAC-10 upper pictured in FTB's guidance, FTB would
classify the MAC-10 upper as a firearm because it fires a projectile. In fact, as noted, ATF
does not regard the sample MAC-I 0 upper as a firearm at this time, which contradicts FTB1s
current classification of the firearm submitted by Historic Arms, LLC in that regard.
The materials FTB added converted the firearm submitted by Historic Arms, LLC into a
machinegun; therefore, the materials constitute a machinegun receiver, a machincgun, or a
conversion device.
FTB1s manipulation oftest criteria in order to achieve a specific result is clear and reliable
proof of "Outcome Based Testing." Taken at face value, it appears that the purpose of the
second test was lO produce the outcome of finding a way to convert the Historic Anns, LLC
submitted fireann into a mscbinegun.
Since FTB has not applied the first or second test criteria to other MAC-10 uppers. and doing
so would result in a FTB determining that all other MAC~10 uppers are machine guns or at
least fircanns, it appears that FTB has singled out the fireann submitted by Historic Anrui.
LLC to preclude its manufacture and sale. [Please refer to the enclosed table.]
In summary, the second test FTB used was not valid. The reasons are that the second test's
criteria and application (1) has not been consistent or uniformly applied to all MAC-I 0 uppers,
(2) apparently singles out the firearm submitted by Historic Anns, LLC to preclude its
manufacture and sale, and (3) ignores the fBCt that applying the second test to other MAC-10
uppers would convert them into machineguns, as was the case with the fireann submitted by
Historic Arms, LLC. Also, importantly, if the test FTB applied to the firearm submitted by
1983
RIP
2008-06-16 08:29
(b) (6)
p 3/4
Historic Arms, LLC was applied to 1hc sample MAC-I0 upper pictured in FTB's guidance, the
MAC IO upper would be classified as a firearm because it fires a projectile. In fact, as noted,
ATF does not regard the sample MAC-10 upper as a fireann at this time.
It is difficult to understand how FTB would single out a firearm that is not a machine gun.
convert it into a machineaun and thus preclude its manufacture and sale, while ignoring the fact
that FTB could convert millions of MAC-10 uppers that ATF cwrcntly does not define as
firearms, into fi.rcanns or machineguns.
l believe a human error occurred; that we are all human and make errors; and that this error can
be addressed with a correction letter from FTB; and the return of my submitted short barrel rifle.
If this is not the case please notify me immediately
Respectfully,
Len Savage
1984
RIP
2008-06-16 08:30
p 4/4
(b) (6)
DEVICES FOR MACTYPE REGISTERED MACHINEGUNS

THAT FIRE FROM AN OPEN BOLT CONFIGURATION
Name of
firearm or
device,
Claaaification
under the GCA
ClaNlfieatioa
under the NFA
Results of FfB Results of FfB

Test#l
Test#l
Iducttape,metal [chain,metal
pllte,plutic
plate,tenaion
Sample MAC-10
uoncr shown
Calico uoocr'
Flemming type
.22 uooer
Anthony Smith
Soumi unner*
Not a firearm
Not a firearm
tiesl
Firearm
Not a firearm
Not a firearm
Not a firearm
Notafimmn
Machinegun
Machinegun
Machincizun
Not a fireann
Notatm:am
Machinegun
Machinegun
Stoney Cmek
Sowni uoocr
Not a fireann
Notafuemn
Machinegun
Machincgun
Fircann:
Short Barreled
Rifle
Firearm
Machinegun
Fircann
S4RCCU
7.62xS4R
Caliber
Conversion Unit
boltal
Firearm
Machinegun
All of the these have been climified by ATF/FTB to be NON-firearms.
Historic Arms LLC intentions are to keep "prohibited persons" from possessing a 54R Caliber
Conversion Device to address a stated ATF concern. ATF considers "uppers" for a MACType
firearm to not be a fircann or the frame or receiver of a firearm. A convicted felon could in
theory own [or in Mr. Flemming's case] manufacture these "uppers" openly for distribution to
general public.
0
1985
RIP
Page I of2
(b) (6)
From:
Spencer. John R.
Sent:
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:04 PM
To:
(b) (6)
Subject: FW: Attention: John Spencer
Gentlemen,
Update from Mr. Savage concerning the FNC ruling.
John R. Spencer
Posted At: Saturday, May 31, 2008 10:02 AM
Conversation: Attention: John Spencer
Subject: Attention: John Spencer
Mr. John R. Spencer

244 Needy Rd.
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I am contacting you regarding ATF Rul. 2008-1, and how it relates to a previous product inquiry by myself and my
company.
Specifically in the ruling ATF stated:
"In order to install a registered FNC sear into a host FNC rifle, a hole must be drilled into the lower assembly and a
portion of the solid area of the lower assembly between the magazine well and the compartment for the trigger
mechanism must be milled out. If the lower assembly were to be classified as the receiver, any such modifications
would create new machinegun receiver, potentially in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(0) (prohibiting the transfer or
possession of a machinegun except for official Federal, State, or local government use)."
ATF further stated:
"Reclassification of the upper assembly as the receiver will also allow the continued installation of a lawfull y
registered sear into an FNC rifle because no modification to the receiver, which is the upper assembly, is required to
properly install the sear."
In closing ATF states:
"To the extent this ruling is inconsistent with any previous ATF classifications, they are hereby superseded."
I am referring a guidance document issued by Firearms Technology Branch on April 20, 2006 [document control
number: 903050:RV 3311/2006-358]. I had contacted FTB about the permanent installation of registered conversion
device in several models of Historic Arms LLC semiautomatic firearms.
'
717/ 2009
1986
RIP
Page 2 of2
The guidance document issued on April 20, 2006 is inconsistent with the new ruling. The two main objections noted at
that time were:
"Manufacture of this host trigger device would constitute the manufacture of a new and uniquely designed
machinegun".
It must be noted that the submitted "host trigger device" was nothing more t han the "lower" from a semiautomatic
BREN that was modified to accept the "Broadhead Armory conversion trigger" that is a registered machinegun in and
of it's self. The actual modification requires less machining than a FNC lower to accept a conversion device outlined
in guidance document A TF Ruling 2008-1 .
"The Ml 1 conversion trigger is a trigger that has been designed to convert an open bolt semiautomatic Ml 1 into a
machinegun"
I must point out ATF Ruling 82-8 that very clearly states that ALL open bolt semiautomatic Ml 1 type firearms are
ALL machineguns. Those manufactured prior to June 21, 1982 are exempt from NFA and GCA purview, to quote:
..shall not be applied". As a machinegun, they do not require a conversion device.
When the guidance document ATF Ruling 2008-1 is applied to the guidance document April 20 2006 it is inconsistent,
[and superseded?].
Specifically: Is the modification of the "lower" or "trigger housing" [no receiver modifications] to install the lawfully
possessed and registered "Broadhead Armory Ml 1 conversion trigger" in Historic Arms LLC semiautomatic firearms
[Models: SGMB, RPD, BREN, and MAG-58] now lawful? Is the complete firearm also lawful?
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Len Savage
7/7/2009
1987
RIF

Final Response 2015-0677 For December 23 2015 Release

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 23 2015 Release

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

December 23, 2015

REFER TO: 2015-0677

Mr. David T. Hardy

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMES NOW the United States of America,

above-styled civil action, pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal

Exhibits, which are attached to Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law:

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43 Filed 10/28/09 Page 2 of 4

ATF letter to Claimant dated June 10, 2008

Declaration of Firearms Enforcement Officer

Curriculum vitae of Max M. Kingery

Declaration of Chief, Firearms Technology

2009, test firing of

2009, test firing of

Undated videos (3) provided by Claimant during

Letter from Claimant's president dated June

ATF Rulings 82-2, 82-8 and 83-5

(From Spencer Depo.,

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that its Motion be inquired into

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43 Filed 10/28/09 Page 3 of 4

This 28th day of October, 2009.

Isl G. Jeffrey Viscomi

Isl Harry R. Foster, III

Georgia Bar No. 289074

Georgia Bar No. 270620

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43 Filed 10/28/09 Page 4 of 4

I hereby certify that , on October 28, 2009 , I electronically

Isl G. Jeffrey Viscomi

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-1 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1of10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Federally-licensed firearms manufacturer, filed a Notice of

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") Form 2 ("Form 2") .

manufactured one Histo ric Arms Model 54RRCCS 7.62x54R Caliber

submitted the Defendant t o ATF's Firearms Technology Branch

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-1 Filed 10/28/09 Page 2of10

Claimant's President also submitted a letter dated April 21,

Firearms Enforcement Officer Max M. Kingery ("FEO Kingery")

FEO Kingery conducted an examination of the Defendant and

FTB is the office within ATF responsible for providing

The PK, or Pulemet Kalashnikova, machinegun was o riginally

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-1 Filed 10/28/09 Page 3of10

trunnion/stock mounting block3

(Exhibit 1, pp. 2 and 7).

Defendant was comprised of the following components:

During deposition, Claimant's President stated the origin of

A trunnion, as commonly known in the firearms industry, is

Specifically, a "frame" or "receiver" is the "part of a

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-1 Filed 10/28/09 Page 4of10

that the Defendant fired a 25-round test belt during test

Claimant ' s president stated that the Defendant's receiver was

(Savage Depo., pp. 106-109; Kingery

Depa., p. 151, lines 13-16).

FEO Kingery determined, and the Claimant confirmed that the

A machinegun bolt blocking bar is a rectangular solid

Firing from an open bolt refers to a method of operation

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-1 Filed 10/28/09 Page 5 of 10

After conducting his examination of the Defendant, FEO Kingery

To verify that the Defendant shot automatically, FEO Kingery

PK machineguns do not utilize a traditional fixed firing

Under the NFA, the term "trigger" is no t defined. ATF has

Case 1:09-cv-00192-GET Document 43-1 Filed 10/28/09 Page 6 of 10