Just had my WWII hero Dad's TRW M14NM retirement gift rifle confiscated by ATF

[M14NM illegally seized]

See if judges brief shows up

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

Basically this recent appeals court ruling says the ATF "once-a-machinegun-always-a-machinegun" is a bunch of BS


F.J. VOLLMER COMPANY, INC. v. John W. MAGAW, Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, U.S. Department of the Treasury

In support of its argument that its distinction between new and remodified semiautomatic receivers, although rejected by the merits panel, was nevertheless reasonable, the agency points out that the Firearms Act treats machineguns differently from other firearms. The agency is certainly correct that, unlike in the case of other weapons, the Firearms Act includes machinegun receivers and machinegun conversion kits as machineguns in their own right. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (1994). The agency offers no convincing explanation, however, why this difference should lead to different procedures for removing machineguns as opposed to all other weapons from Firearms Act coverage. According to the agency, for weapons other than machineguns, removal of the features that led to the weapon’s classification as a firearm suffices to remove the weapon from the Act’s coverage. Firearms Enforcement Program, ATF Order 3310.4B ¶ 83(e)(2). For machinegun receivers, however, removal of the features causing their classification as machineguns does not remove them from Firearms Act coverage, and thus the Gun Control Act’s prohibition. Under the agency’s once-a-machinegun-always-a-machinegun policy, only complete destruction can remove machinegun receivers from the Firearms Act’s coverage. We can find nothing in the text of the Firearms Act to support this difference in treatment.

United States Court of Appeals, No. 95-5187

 

[TreyG-20]

Way out of my realm, but I'll be interested to see where this goes. Hope you get it back.

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

AR920-25 paragraph 3

"3. Special modification of M14NM for target
quality. The M14NM version of the rifle will
embody the aforementioned modification and will
be further refined to effect Match target quality
by the strict selectivity of components and hand
fitting operations during manufacture."

pretty obvious the M14NM was specifically designed for TARGET SHOOTING

Now read the BOLD items

the first paragraph of the 1968 GCA "purpose"

"Gun Control Act of 1968".
TITLE I—STATE FIREARMS CONTROL ASSISTANCE
PURPOSE
SEC. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title
is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the
purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions
or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisi
tion, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of
hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any
other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage
or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding
citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal
regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably
necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this
title.

Now the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act: (yea right, like it really protected US)

PUBLIC LAW 99-308—MAY 19, 1986 100 STAT. 449

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the "Firearms Owners'
Protection Act".
(b) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the rights of citizens—
(A) to keep and bear arms under the second amendment
to the United States Constitution;
(B) to security against illegal and unreasonable searches
and seizures under the fourth amendment;
(C) against uncompensated taking of property, double
jeopardy, and assurance of due process of law under the
fifth amendment; and
(D) against unconstitutional exercise of authority under
the ninth and tenth amendments;
require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes
and enforcement policies; and
(2) additional legislation is required to reaffirm the intent of
the Congress, as expressed in section 101 of the Gun Control Act
of 1968, that "it is not the purpose of this title to place any
undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on lawabiding
citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or
use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting,
target shooting, personal protection, or any other
lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage
or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by lawabiding
citizens for lawful purposes.".

 

[Axxe55]

I really hate to think this, but even if you do win, you may not win in the long run. What if from court proceedings you do by some stroke of luck win your case, and the ATF returns to you a pile of cut up metal that use to resemble the rifle you own?

Yeah you won the battle, but at what cost? You are out at least $20K according to you for legal fees, and that could very well just be the starting figure and not the final cost. You also end up with a worthless pile of scrap metal that now you can't sell to try and recoup some of your legal fees.

Might sound far-fetched, but it's happened before, and I wouldn't trust some federal agency bureaucrat to do just that out of spite for them losing in a court battle.

 

[grumper]

First attorney who told you to invite the man into your life is an idiot.

I hope you're not paying him $20k to try and fix the mess he got you into in the first place.

'Never write letters to the ATF' is a well known mantra for anyone who's seen the kind of shenanigans that result from that kind of correspondence.

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

I agree: you will be okay.
Two reasons for my willingness to help:
* You are right and they are wrong.
* I am blessed with the ownership of an M1A. If this crap stands, it will be no time that they decide mine is a machine gun, since it could be modified. Scary!!!!
So, yes, my interest is selfish.

+I also own an armscorp M1A, marked on the heel M14

I hold an 07 FFL (Manufacturer) with SOT and could convert mine to full auto in about an hour but I went thru basic in early 1968 at Ft Polk with the M14. (I think I was in the last basic class with the M14 because when I got to Nam I was issued an M16. only M14s I saw in Nam were sniper rifles, attached to 25th inf Dau Tieng, 1968-1969)

The M14 on full auto is only effective when held sideways for area effect. The muzzle climb is almost uncontrollable

That being said, the M1A is a GREAT rifle. You can really "reach out and touch someone" with it. and the M14NM is unbelievable.

To be honest with you though, the TRW m14NM M21 is a little bit above my pay grade.

Family is more important, but I am a good upstanding American and I have been trifled with and I will not stand for it within my legal means.

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

I really hate to think this, but even if you do win, you may not win in the long run. What if from court proceedings you do by some stroke of luck win your case, and the ATF returns to you a pile of cut up metal that use to resemble the rifle you own?

Yeah you won the battle, but at what cost? You are out at least $20K according to you for legal fees, and that could very well just be the starting figure and not the final cost. You also end up with a worthless pile of scrap metal that now you can't sell to try and recoup some of your legal fees.

Might sound far-fetched, but it's happened before, and I wouldn't trust some federal agency bureaucrat to do just that out of spite for them losing in a court battle.

They will be getting an injunction within days to prevent that. Attorney has already spoken to them.

 

[Axxe55]

First attorney who told you to invite the man into your life is an idiot.

I hope you're not paying him $20k to try and fix the mess he got you into in the first place.

'Never write letters to the ATF' is a well known mantra for anyone who's seen the kind of shenanigans that result from that kind of correspondence.

Totally agree.

If the rifle was never capable of being a select-fire, or fully auto, I see no reason that informing the ATF ever served any purpose.

Yes, that lawyer is an idiot. Who would have ever known anything about the rifle if the ATF hadn't been written a letter? Probably not one person.

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

First attorney who told you to invite the man into your life is an idiot.

I hope you're not paying him $20k to try and fix the mess he got you into in the first place.

'Never write letters to the ATF' is a well known mantra for anyone who's seen the kind of shenanigans that result from that kind of correspondence.

Actually not.

I could never sell the gun with out first making it legal. Put it on Gunbroker won't accept it without papers.
.
If you know someone who will pay fair market value for a M14NM I can put him in contact with someone who has one.
.
As I stated earlier, the one from the 1980s case that the judge made the ATF return sold for $8500 back then. What is it worth now?

That being said, I agree 100% that the ATF is well known for "shenanigans". Also for not knowing sxxt from shinola. My first dealing with the NFA branch was when I got my 03 FLL license and handbook and found in the back of the handbook to my amazement that as an 03 C&R I could own certain old MACHINE GUNS. WOW!! So i contacted the same ATF NFA guy and asked if I could buy a Suomi parts kit, get my 07 and build one. He emailed me the paragraphs from the NFA handbook about REWATs of DEWATS and I thought I was good to go. Then I down downloaded the full NFA handbook and noticed the "fine print" about "registered". When I emailed back he basically said, oh, wait a minute, I guess I read that wrong. Since then I have Educated myself before I say anything to the ATF.

 

[DoubleDuty]

I wish you the best. Our government has some imbeciles in a lot of agencies.

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

Totally agree.

If the rifle was never capable of being a select-fire, or fully auto, I see no reason that informing the ATF ever served any purpose.

Yes, that lawyer is an idiot. Who would have ever known anything about the rifle if the ATF hadn't been written a letter? Probably not one person.

Only problem is the rifle's first name "M14"

You try to sell an M14 and everyone will tell you it is a "go to jail gun"
Have you been able to read the court case I attached?
The judge NEVER referred to the gun as an M14. He always referred to it as a NM

My case is based on the fact that it is NOT a M14 it is specifically a M14NM

I checked with the auction houses, they would not touch it.

 

[Axxe55]

Only problem is the rifle's first name "M14"

You try to sell an M14 and everyone will tell you it is a "go to jail gun"
Have you been able to read the court case I attached?
The judge NEVER referred to the gun as an M14. He always referred to it as a NM

My case is based on the fact that it is NOT a M14 it is specifically a M14NM

I checked with the auction houses, they would not touch it.

I think if you read this part of the article on M14 rifles, several civilian manufacturers of a M14 style semi-auto rifle use "M14" in their model numbers.

M14 rifle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So just because it uses "M14" in the model designation of the rifle, a person can't automatically assume it's a select-fire or full auto version.

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

I tried to copy and paste the PDF of the court case this is a pretty good copy. The ATF did not appeal, I personally know the current owner of this TRW M14NM.

Be Sure to note that the judge when referring to this rifle always refers to it as TRW M14NM. M14NM or even NM. NEVER as M14.
PART ONE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. C-3-78-125
Plaintiff, )
v. )
ONE (1) U. s. (TRW) ·7.62mm ) M-14 NATIONAL MATCH RIFLE,SERIAL NO. 1453711, )
Defendant. )
ROBERT E . . SAUERMAN, · )
Party in Interest. )
In accord with a Memo Findings and
Conclusions) filed this date -
A
It is adjudged that the complaint be dismissed at
the costs of the plaintiff.

B -

That the defendant NM Rifle S/N 1453711 be returned
by the United States to the claimant and Party in Interest,
Robert E. Sauerman.

- c -

Attorney's fees will not be awarded as costs or
otherwise.

- D -

This judgment is stayed, on the Court's own motion,
for a period of ninety (90) days to permit an appeal and, if
an appeal is perfected within that time, it is stayed pending
final disposition of such appeal.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. C-3-78-125
Plaintiff, )
v. )
ONE (1) U. S. (TRW) 7. 62rnm
M-14 NATIONAL MATCH RIFLE, .
SERIAL NO. 1453711,

)

)

Defendant. )
ROBERT E . .SAUERMAN, )
Party in Interest. )
MEMO
At the time of pertinence here 26 U.S.C. § 586l(d}
prohibited as unlawful the "receipt or possession" of a
"firearm" not registered in accordance with the requirements
of the National Firearms Act.

Title 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a) defined "firearms" and
included as (6) was and is a nmachine gun."
Title 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) defined the term "machine
gun" as meaning "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 II
The "party in interest" in this case, Robert E.
Sauerman, is a citizen of considerable substance. He is a
Chemical Engineer and a practitioner of his profession. In
licensed firearms dealer and holds a dealer's license for
automatic weapons.
In 1973 or '74 Sauerman purchased an "M-14 NM"
rifle - the defendant in this forfeiture case; sometime
later he purchased another one which he sold to a dealer in
Chicago. Neither was registered. The Chicago dealer\
inquired as to the legality of the transaction - raising
the question whether the article was an "automatic" rather
than a "semi-automatic." ·sauerman assured him it was a
semi-automatic (i.e., will fire only one shot in response to
one trigger action) and in furtherance of a desire to set
the question officially at rest Sauerman, in 1977, advised
the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tax & Firearms of his action
and informed them that he was in possession of the unregistered
M-14 NM purchased in 1974. The Bureau took the
position that the defendant was a machine gun and proceeded
to confiscate it at the Gun Shop of the Party in Interest
near Dayton.
Sauerman went through the proper procedure to claim
his rifle from the confiscation and the United States thereupon
filed this case for forfeiture of the defendant.
The "issue" has been the subjectof a full evidentiary
trial, briefs and proposals. It is: .
Is the Defendant, One U.S. (T.R.W.) !/ 7.62mm M-14 ·
National Match Rifle, S.N. 1453711, a machine gun -
as that term is defined above, i.e. ,
1/
The "T.R.W." indicates that the manufacturer is "T.R.W.,
Inc." of Cleveland.
(a) will it, without manual reloading, shoot
automatically more than one shot, by a single
function of the trigger?
or
(b) was it designed so to do?
or
(c) can it be readily restored so to do?
If the answer to any of the three questions be
in the affirmative the complaint of the United
States for forfeiture and condemnation must be
granted; if the answer to each be negative the
claim of the Party in Interest must be sustained
and the rifle returned by the United States to
Sauerman.
Facts (Findings)

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

PART TWO

the parties have developed considerable technical
detail in the evidence, as should 'have been. We do not
believe it would be of any substantial help to attempt to
describe the detail. There is a great deal of agreement on
most of the ultimate facts.

The M-14 rifle was developed by and/or for the
United States Army in the fifties as a basic infantry weapon.
While it was "designed primarily for semi-automatic fire,"
it could be - and generally was - made convertible to fire
throueh the installation of a "selector." It
was a relatively simply operation and required only the use
of a "punch" and the following of some simple directions to
convert the M-14 from semi-automatic to automatic and/or
from automatic (once it had been converted) back to semiautomatic
only. The M-14 was manufactured by a number of
manufacturers and was and is unquestionably a "machine gun."
Via simple adjustments it could be changed from a semiautomatic
to an automatic or viceversa and the simple
adjustments were made _to movable or adjustable built-in
parts and easily. It would shoot automatic-ally and was de.-
signed so to do.

The M-14 turned out to be an extremely accurate
weapon. The Army has, for generations, encouraged citizen
training and military familiarity and that includes sponsoring
National Rifle Matches, National. Rifle Teams, and
Junior and Senior Rifle Associations. It was decided to
modify the M-:14 (military or infantry version) so that the
basics of the weapon became match usable. The M-14 was to
be modified or converted for civilian marksmanship use and

. . 2/
in that form was to be and was known as the M-14 N.M. -
The defendant in this case is an N.M.

A - Present Form
There is no serious contention that the NM the
defendant - is an automatic. It simply will not as it exists
fire more than one shot.per trigger pull, without reloading
manually.

· B - Design
The NM is basically the M-14 service rifle with the
exception of a welding operation performed on the selector
shaft lock, the selector shaft retaining pin and the
selector shaft. The welding operation will render the rifles
inoperable of full automatic fire, since the selector may no
longer be assembled thereto. The NM version embodied the
above described modification and was further ·refined in a
number of ways to effect match target quality. (The changes
called for some handiwork fitting during manufacture, strict
component selection, special barrels, etc.) ·
While the "basics" were common, this is not a case
in which the automatic weapon (M-14) was made first by a
given manufacturer and then modified to an N.M. As a matter
of fact, only a few manufacturers made the NM and those only
on order from the United States Army and one was T.R.W. A
number of manufacturers made the Ml4. The physical objective
designs were different and if one followed one, at no point
was the other resultant (along the way or otherwise). A
number of characteristics desired in an infantry weapon,
including automatic fire ability, were in the design and
intent of the maker. A number of them were not in the design
or desire of the manufacturer of the NM and that included
the automatic feature - the single shot feature was desired
and designed. The manufacturer of the NM put it this way:
"All N.M. rifles that were manufactured by us were
designed by the United States Government and were
manufactured and intended for use in a semiautomatic
mode only."

In the course of the manufacture of the NM, five
welding operations were required (both by the design instructions
and by the inspection requirements). The purpose was
to "permanently" permit only semi-automatic fire. The welding
operations were to be performed on the selector shaft
lock, the lock retaining pin, the selector shaft, the
receiver, and the sear release. It is not seriously
controverted that such five-point weldment rendered the
rifle incapable of automatic fire, since the selector could
no longer be assembled thereto.
We believe, in summary, that it is clear on this
record that the NM was designed to shoot only in a semiautomatic
fashion and that both the United States and the
manufacturer intended that it would be permanently impossible
for it to operate in an automatic manner and that such is
the case.

C - Restoration
The Party in Interest argues that the "restoration"
provisions are not involved in this case because one cannot
"restore" something to a condition it never was in; that a
finding, as above, that the NM, as manufactured, was not a
machine gun, by intent or in fact, precludes a consideration
of "restoration." The argument ·is linguistically sound as a
general proposition. However, it is fairly obvious that it
was the intent of Congress .in amending the definition of a
machine gun in 5845(b) in 1968 to include in the definition
of a machine gun any object that could be "readily" con- ·
verted to an automatic weapon. See 5 Rep. No. 1501, 90th
Cong. 2nd Sess. 45 (1968); 1968 U.S. Code C. & Ad. News at
4434.

It was the claim of the United States that the NM
is "readily" (in the statutory language) convertible to a
fully automatic weapon. To support that claim, the United
States took an M-14 and did three of the weldments and there-
\.. after .established that it was a relatively simple task for
someone knowledgeable with guns to remove the welds and, with
the use of a paper clip, fire the -gun automatically. The
_proof does establish that an M-14 with some modification is
readily convertible.

The United States has in its possession thousands
of NMs - there is not an iota of evidence in this record
based on which one could describe what it takes to convert an existing .
NM. Nor is there any satisfactory explanation
-·of why, in the mock-up, three weldments were-used instead of
the five in fact made on an NM. There is no question that
the "conversion" would require that something be done with
respect to five weldments and any fact finder, on the present
record, would simply be guessing what that was and/or whether
it could be done "readily."

Conclusion·
1. The defendant NM was designed as and is a
semi-automatic weapon.

2. The defendant was not designed to shoot
automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading,
by a single function of the trigger.

3. The same two conclusions apply to the frame or
receiver of the defendant. (The frame or receiver is simply
what might be called in ordinary parlance the section of the
gun containing . its chamber, trigger, firing· mechanisms.)

4. This Court cannot determine on this record
what it would take to convert the defendant or any other NM
to a machine gun. There is no evidence on it. Since the
. United States claims the conversion is one readily made and
has the burden, at least initially, on that issue, the Court
must .find to the· contrary (there being no proof). Accordingly,
it is found and concluded that the defendant cannot be readily
restored or converted to a .fully automatic weapon.

5. The defendant is neither a machine gun, as defined
by 26 U.S. C. 5845 (a), nor a firearm, as defined by 5845 (a) ..

6. The possession of the defendant by Robert E.
Sauerman on September 27, 1977 at Bob's Gun Shop near Dayton,
Ohio, was· not a violation of 26 U.S.C. 5812 and 586l(d) and
the defendant is not subject to forfeiture under 26 U.S.C ~
5872.

District Judge

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

I think if you read this part of the article on M14 rifles, several civilian manufacturers of a M14 style semi-auto rifle use "M14" in their model numbers.

M14 rifle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So just because it uses "M14" in the model designation of the rifle, a person can't automatically assume it's a select-fire or full auto version.

The M1A is marked and referred to as an "m14" because we all know that no one can legally own a real M14, unless they owned it and registered it before 1986, and I do not dispute that at all.

This all comes down to semantics, a M14NM is not a M14. See the court case I just posted in 2 posts so everyone could read it.

 

[M14NM illegally seized]

 

[Axxe55]

The M1A is marked and referred to as an "m14" because we all know that no one can legally own a real M14, unless they owned it and registered it before 1986, and I do not dispute that at all.

This all comes down to semantics, a M14NM is not a M14. See the court case I just posted in 2 posts so everyone could read it.

The M1A was never referred to as an M14, because the M1A was always semi-auto only. The design, inspiration and even the appearance might suggest an M14, that doesn't make it so.

Semantics aside, apparently because of supposed semantics, you are now in the situation you are in.

 

[Texasjack]

This advice is too late, but it may help you in the future:

Trust the government as far as you can throw a piano.

Ah, yes, the ATF. Perhaps you don't remember all those children they killed in Waco a few decades ago. If you run into that guy who told you to contact them, you should plant your foot squarely in his ass. And then, if possible, kick yourself for listening to such bad advice.

I see many posts about getting the rifle back, but there's a very good chance that it's been chopped up and melted down for scrap.

 

[Axxe55]

OP seems to be able to cite all these relevant court cases and cases that show precedence in regards to his seizure, you would think he could have saved himself a bunch of money by filing a case himself instead of hiring an attorney.

That way if he does lose the case, he wouldn't be out a huge chunk of money spent on legal fees.

Just an observation.