Huelke, David RichardWarning letter
This gun manufacturer was cited for 2 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.
|Type||Manufacturer of firearms|
|Expiry||Feb 1, 2023|
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 32 hours conducting this inspection. 152 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.
Please conduct a Disposition Emphasis compliance inspection, to include a complete Inventory and review of all ATF Forms 4473 .available for the inspection period. Verify ownership, responsible persons status, and contact Information. Document each finding, and enter all required information into N-SPECT .
ATF IOI redacted conducted an onsite firearms compliance inspection of type 07, Manufacturer of Firearms, Federal Firearms Licensee David Huelke on 01/17/2017. A closing conference was held with the licensee on 02/14/2017. Two violations were cited concerning the manufacture of redacted pistols from receivers; the failure to mark the pistols, as required by the regulations and the failure to properly document the manufacturing process in the A/D record book. I recommend a warning letter with no recall inspection as an alternative to a warning conference.
This inspector Involved the examination of redacted forms 4473 and an inventory of redacted firearms For the past twelve months the licensee acquired and disposed of redacted and redacted firearms, respectively. This inspection resulted in 2 violations. Notably, the licensee failed to mark manufactured firearms appropriately, and was cited for 478.92(a), in redacted instances. The licensee appeared to be genuinely ignorant of his obligation to mark the firearms. In that the firearms operation is very small, the licensee was cooperative, and the problem was contained, not creating a public safety hazard, I recommend the licensee be sent a Warning Letter in lieu of a Warning Conference
A warning conference is prescribed by ATF O 5370.1C because the licensee failed to property mark redacted firearms he manufacturered and sold into commerce. However, I recommend a warning letter/no recall as the most appropriate outcome because the licensee (1) had no traces, multiple handgun sales, missing guns, or trafficking indicators and thus poses a very low risk to public safety; (2) was never cited for a violation by ATF in two previous inspections even though this violation was previously committed, (3) operates at a very low volume and manufactures pistols using frames that are already marked, so tracing would not be hindered by his marking/recordkeeping errors, and (4) will be re-inspected within 5 years in any event because of his license type.
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 2 violations.
Source: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. About the data »