Defcon One ArmsWarning letter
This gun manufacturer was cited for 5 violations. The inspection resulted in a warning letter.
A warning letter is the least severe action the ATF can take against a licensee with compliance issues. The letter advises the licensee to comply with regulations.
ATF data indicates that this license is no longer active.
|Type||Manufacturer of firearms|
Compliance inspections are conducted by one or more ATF officers. After the lead investigator submits a recommendation, one or more ATF supervisors will review the inspection and either concur with or adjust the recommendation.
This page contains information about a single inspection conducted between 2015 and 2017. The ATF may have inspected this licensee before and/or after the inspection detailed here.
Officers spent a total of 27 hours conducting this inspection. 156 days passed between the assignment and the final review. The licensee received a final outcome of warning letter.
Hover over underlined text to see definitions of common terms.
DE , Manufacturer Program. 100% inventory verification and 12 months ATF Forms 4473 review is required.
A review of the licensee’s records and inventory revealed manufactured handguns without the required manufacturer’s markings. Additionally, the licensee admitted he did not mark redacted manufactured handguns with his license name, city, and state. Per ATF C 5370.1C, failure to mark manufactured firearms appropriately warrants a warning conference. However, Investigator redacted recommends a warning letter in lieu of the warning conference since the licensee admitted to the mistake and has only manufactured redacted firearms since obtaining the license in 2012.
The licensee was cited for 5 total violations of which two warrant an AA per ATF O 5370.1 C. The licensee failed to properly mark firearms further manufactured from receivers with the licensee's name, city and state on two occasions. These violations warrant an A/S warning conference as the minimum AA. However, the licensee has only manufactured redacted firearms since obtaining a FFL in 2012 and did not understand the marking requirements for firearms further manufactured from recievers. The licensee has had one successful trace since becoming licensed and the failure to mark did not impact the traceability of the firearm traced. Additionally, the FFL obtained a computerized recordkeeping program during the inspection period which corrected all of the ATF Form 4473 violations - which demonstrates the FFL's intent to comply with the regulation. As such, a warning letter without recall is appropriate.
Issuing a warning letter is lieu of holding a warning conference as an alternate recommendation is authorized. A recall inspection will not be conducted. This is the licensee's first inspection since the license was issued in 2012. For the current inspection, the licensee failed to properly mark redacted firearms manufactured with the licensee's name, city, and state of manufacture. Only redacted firearms were manufactured since the license was issued in 2012. Approximately redacted firearms were acquired and approximately redacted firearms were disposed of during the inspection period.) This violation rises to a warning conference level. Further, other violations were cited. Concerning ATF Forms 4473 errors, the licensee failed to ensure the forms were properly completed in Sections A, B and D. A total of redacted ATF Forms 4473 had errors in Sections B and D of the 89 reviewed. This rises to a report of violations only. For the certification questions in Section A, the redacted error on an ATF Form 4473 equaled a 1.1 % error rate, equaling a report of violations only. A warning conference is not necessary to again explain how to properly mark firearms. The responsible person (RP) indicated he simply was not aware of the requirement to mark the firearms. The marking requirements were explained during the closing conference and a warning conference is not necessary to again explain this violation, or the other violations cited. Note, the firearms were transferred, so corrective action is not possible. The licensee is aware of the obligations. The traceability of firearms was not an issue during this inspection. A warning letter will suffice to document the violations and reiterate what the RP must due in the future to comply. The warning letter will also document the RP needs to verify all ATF Forms 4473 are always properly completed. Note, a recall inspection is not recommended as all violations were explained during the closing conference and the licensee is aware of the requirements.
If an inspection uncovers regulatory violations, the licensee receives a report outlining these violations. This section lists the violations found in the inspection, as well as a general description of each offense. More details on the nature of the licensee's specific violations may be found in the report PDF.
This licensee was cited for 5 violations.
|1||478.124(c)(1)||Failure to obtain a Form 4473 showing the transferee's name, sex, address, date and place of birth, and other required information. 🔗|
|2||478.124(c)(3)(iv)||Failure to record the date NICS was contacted and the NICS response on Form 4473. 🔗|
|3||478.124(c)(5)||Failure of the licensee to sign or date a Form 4473. 🔗|
|4||478.92(a)(1)(ii)(C)||Failure by a manufacturer or importer to mark frames or receivers with its name and the name of the foreign manufacturer if applicable. 🔗|
|5||478.92(a)(1)(ii)(D)||Failure by a manufacturer or importer to mark frames or receivers with the city and state where the manufacturer is located. 🔗|
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. About the data »