Savage to Sullivan: It's On

After attaching ties, tape and a chain to a submitted firearm in order to attain automatic fire, BATFE has refused to reclassify and return Len Savage's property. They have further demanded that he register it as a machinegun. In response, Savage has challenged them to begin forfeiture proceedings.

WorldNetDaily has the story. Click the title link and read it, and you'll be prepped for the details that follow.

Here's a copy of the ATF refusal and demand. The Cliffs Notes version of what they're saying: Even if they hadn't converted it, it would be "readily restorable" because they could always put the chains, tape and ties back on. So he improperly tried to register it as a short-barreled rifle, when he should have registered it as a machinegun.

Because they're nice guys, they'll let him register it properly, but he must act now or they're going to seize it.

With that as background, here is Len Savage's response, titled "I Received Your Ultimatum":

Acting Director Sullivan,
Mr. John R. Spencer
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
244 Needy Rd.
Martinsburg, WV 25405

Your letter (3311/2008-642) 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 V1. 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 V1 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 V1 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 (3311/2008-471) was received by the Company on June 16, 2008. That letter proclaimed that serial number V1 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 V1, 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 V1. 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 V1 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 V1, 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 V1, 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

In other words, if he took them up on their "offer" and tried to re-register it as a machinegun without a guarantee of immunity, they would technically be able to come after him for committing "unlawful acts". His options are to risk losing an expensive piece of property to forfeiture proceedings, or to risk his livelihood and freedom defending himself from stepping into the trap of essentially being coerced into signing a confession.

Those of you who have been watching things here and in other cases we've talked about, and slogging through the myriad documents, will see what's going on--this is another significant piece of evidence as to the true nature of this agency, and another significant glimpse into the hearts and minds that run it.

Still, there is a glimmer of hope in terms of overreach repercussions they're setting themselves up for. I can't reveal my source, but I am allowed to share with you a particularly insightful observation:

It is axiomatic that ATF won't back off its classification. Thing to do is pound on the illogic of that classification when juxtaposed with the "Error Table" document [see below--DC], and how application of the same test or whatever the [expletive deleted] you call what ATF did to your upper would result in a bunch of other machine guns. Is there any reliable estimate of how many uppers like that are out there, in circulation, as non-firearms? Seems to me like ATF is playing with the kind of fire (benzene, maybe) that can't be put out with water; the only way to put it out is to let it burn, in other words.