It’s fair to say that Robert Cekada has been the most gun rights-friendly ATF Director we’ve ever seen. Actually, it’s not even close. And the contrast is even more stark after the thuggish way the federal firearm regulatory agency operated under the assiduously anti-gun Biden administration.
Elections have consequences and along with the increased support for the right to keep and bear arms from Harmeet Dhillon at DOJ, having Cekada behind the wheel at ATF has been one of the most positive consequences of Trump 2.0.
One manifestation of the improvement at ATF is Director Cekada’s willingness to communicate and engage with the gunosphere. He recently spoke a SAF’s Gun Rights Policy Conference and has talked with a couple of other pro-gun outlets as well.
Earlier this afternoon, the Director and ATF General Counsel Robert Leider gave SNW legal contributor LKB some of his time to answer a few questions about some of the regulatory and other firearm-related issues that are most important to gun owners across America including the agency’s just-released guidance on how it will enforce the law on NFA items under the recent Jensen decision.
You can watch the interview above and here’s a full transcript . . .
Shooting News Weekly: I’m Louis Bonham with Shooting News Weekly. Today, we are fortunate to be speaking to ATF Director Robert Cekada. Director Cekada, welcome, and thanks so much for speaking with us today.
Director Cekada: Thank you for having me, sir. It’s a pleasure to meet you.
SNW: We really, really appreciate that the head of the ATF is willing to engage directly with the firearms community, and it really means a lot to us. Let’s jump in, because I know your time is limited today.
The hot topic, of course, is that the new ATF guidance on the sales of suppressor, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons that will be handled in the wake of the Jensen decision are due out imminently. I understand they’ll be released officially later today. Can you summarize for our audience basically what they cover? How are these going to be handled now?
Director Cekada: Thank you, Louis. I’ll do the best I can, and [ATF Chief Counsel] Robert [Leider] and I are a very good team, and I’m sure we’ll get you as much information as we can. So as you pointed out, despite the opinion of many folks in the public, I’ve been interacting quite a bit with folks in the industry and American gun owners and people were very frustrated because they thought, hey, how come ATF didn’t have this out the day of the ruling? Well, we didn’t know the ruling was coming and we didn’t know which way the judge was going to go.
So despite what appeared to be a lot of criticism towards ATF, we had a lot of communication with people in the industry, people in the public. They shared their concerns with us. We greatly appreciate their patience and frankly, their support to help us understand all of the issues that could be out there. So we’re trying our best within the authorities that ATF and the Department of Justice have to develop an open letter that provides guidance to the public as to what ATF’s enforcement discretion will be like as it applies to folks that may manufacture, transfer, possess, or folks in the industry.
Would they, their concerns were, ‘hey, is ATF going to take my license away if I transfer a suppressor or short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun without transferring out of Form 1 or Form 4?’ A lot of things in there to talk about and a lot of things to look at.
So in a nutshell, what we looked at was the ruling by Judge Hendrix had a very focused group of plaintiffs. And there was a lot of American people that were left out in that process. So ATF and the Department of Justice wanted to do the best we could to broaden that application and the enforcement discretion to the American people at large. Law-abiding American citizens, law-abiding federal firearms licensees who may not be direct plaintiffs were the folks we were trying to envelop in this benefit.
What we also believed in that, you know, if when Congress decided that the American people should not have to pay a $200 tax to manufacture or transfer a short-barreled rifle, suppressor or a short-barreled shotgun or any other weapon. We didn’t think it was right for the American people to have to be a member of any particular organization either.
So we all worked together very closely to find out, hey, how do we navigate this path forward so that we can broaden this as much as possible and give the folks in our country the opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment rights as best as they can.
There are some restrictions, not on the federal side. There are about 15 states that require the American people to provide a Form 1 or a Form 4 and have it approved by ATF before they can manufacture or complete a transfer of one of these items. When we were going through this process, there was a discussion of potentially getting rid of the Form 1s and Form 4s altogether.
We recognize, hey, that would isolate about 15 states where a lot of American people and businesses to include federal firearms licensees would be greatly impacted. And we would be impeding the Second Amendment as opposed to trying to expand and protect the Second Amendment. So the only challenge we have there is the state laws are not bound by ATF or the Department of Justice. So to be able to provide the support needed to make sure these folks can exercise their Second Amendment rights, ATF is going to continue to accept voluntary submissions of Form 1s and Form 4s in those states.
As you know, we’ve tremendously cut down the processing times on those forms, whether they’re individual or trusts. You’ve heard me say it before in different venues that I myself several years ago was not encouraged to purchase a suppressor because it would have taken me 14 months to actually see the suppressor that I laid out good money for. So I’m very proud of my folks and the work we’ve done there. So those businesses and American people that would have to comply with their state laws until those state laws change, ATF will be very efficient in processing those submissions as we move forward.
SNW: I greatly, and that was going to be one of my questions was in terms of certainly, you know, Judge Hendrix was bound by those, you know, particular things of us lawyers dealing with standing. But I’m, it’s certainly encouraging that ATF is looking at the big picture in terms of not keeping it narrow to that. So, I applaud you for that thing and I look forward to seeing the guidance. Is this going to be nationwide or is it going to be limited to geographic areas?
Director Cekada: Nationwide.
SNW: Great. Okay. With that, we discussed it in terms of Form 4 practice, in terms of sales, in terms of Form 1 practice for end-users who are going to lawfully assemble a suppressor or most commonly an SBR. Again, same provisions basically, it’s nationwide and not limited to the plaintiff groups. Is that correct?
Director Cekada: That’s correct. The only other limitations would be persons that are prohibited from possessing said items. The one thing we caution people too is you can’t engage in the business.
SNW: Of course, and we still have to comply with the Gun Control Act of ’68.
SNW: In terms of engraving and serialization and interstate transportation. So, you know, there’s obviously, everyone is not, it’s not unregulated completely, but it’s a good start.
Speaking of engraving, I know there was a proposed regulation to streamline the engraving for [items], for example, SBRs, SBSs that already are engraved. What’s the current status of that? I know it was out for comment. Has it been approved? Is it still in the pipeline?
Director Cekada: Still in the pipeline. We got the comments back, and we’re reviewing those comments. We do consider what people say, and then we write responses. And then there’s a bunch of internal process that we have to go through as we draft that to get it in final form. And then once it’s [complete], it goes out as a final rule.
SNW: Yeah, like I say, the APA is pretty unforgiving, so I follow you on that. Again, I look forward to being able to review the guidance in person when it comes out today. Let me switch gears a little bit, because we only have a few minutes. I’d like to turn your attention to another matter that’s been in the news lately, and that’s, of course, the long-running question of whether the ATF’s Martinsburg digital database, which I believe is up to 1.4 billion transactions—is in fact a registry prohibited by the Firearms Owners Protection Act. And of course I know a number of senators and even Vice President Vance have expressed renewed concerns about it. Now, largely this was a problem you inherited because it was massively expanded under the Biden administration. But where, as we sit here right now—and again, if you’re waiting to officially comment in response to the senators’ letter, I can understand, but what’s the ATF position as far as the Martinsburg database?
Director Cekada: Yeah, so first of all, I actually appreciate the timing of the question. I was actually just in Martinsburg last week. And a few things, right? I know that there is, and I’m not naming anyone, there’s a number of folks that have written letters over the years. And there’s a number of folks that have visited the National Services Center in Martinsburg, where the out-of-business records are housed.
We are required by law to maintain those records. That’s the first thing. The second thing is we’re required to be able to provide traces for our state, local and federal law enforcement partners. So this is something that goes back, frankly, 40 years. And during that time, we’ve had onsite visits just within the last few years from some of those same congressmen and senators that you’ve seen letters being written from. They’ve got a completely transparent tour, as I would welcome you, as well, to see what’s going on there.
A few things I wanna clarify. When people hear 1.4 billion records, there isn’t actually 1.4 billion firearms transaction records. What happens is, for example, this sheet of paper, if this was a 4473, over the years, it was a few pages to six pages, whatever it is, each page on the out of business records, only the out of business records. We have zero live records from federal firearms licensees that are in business. Each page is one of those records that contributes to the 1.4 billion number. And if there’s only 3.5% of those 1.4 billion records, which are pages that have actually been scanned into a system called IBM-L. That system is a high speed digital scanner that IBM programmed prior to even installing it at our site to not be able to utilize object character recognition.
I know during the previous Director’s time, he testified at a hearing that we buy Adobe and turn off the feature. That’s not the way it is. I think the Director was mistaken in his description. We don’t have the ability to turn on or turn off any object character recognition feature. So I’m going to use Rob Cekada math. You gentlemen are much smarter than me. I went to school in New York City, so if my math is bad, please blame the educational system in New York City.
If you take the 1.4 billion records and then multiply by 3.5%, it comes out to be roughly 49 million, which is a huge number. But then if you divide that by either five or six, I’ll go with six because it’s an easier number for me. Let’s go. It’s about 8.5 million records that are in—that have been digitized. When I say records, 4473s, out-of-business records. And they could be anything that’s within a couple years old or 60 years old. Depends on what’s in the system there.
The rest of the records are all in boxes and boxes and boxes throughout two buildings. This is something that we took on as a challenge in our modernization and reducing the burden without actually impeding law enforcement’s ability to conduct a trace and without putting public safety at risk. For many years, 20 years was the retention period for out-of-business records.
During the last administration, Director Dettelbach pushed it to a lifetime. We have very good stats after 40 years to show when the value of a 4473 starts to dip significantly. And we’ve learned that you don’t need to have records for 50, 60, 70, or 100 years to be able to get a very good benefit for law enforcement and the tracing capacity. So I’m going to simplify this.
When you go to the tracing center, and I’m going to compare it to what I used to do when I was a cop. When I go to the tracing center, if a police department calls up and says, hey, Rob Cekada, this firearm was recovered on the street in a shooting. Can you please trace it for us? This is all done digitally through eTrace submitted to ATF. So it comes over electronically. When it comes over, we don’t know who…we know two things if they if they filled it out properly we know this the the manufacturer the make model and serial number we don’t know anything else at that point our folks will initially uh check the serial number to see if it’s one of those 3.5 million uh i’m sorry one of the 3.5 percent uh which comes out to be eight and a half million or so records that were digitally scanned in there
If we’re lucky and it pops up in there, what it pops up is the manufacturer and where those records are actually held. And then I got to go into that acquisition and disposition book and find out when that occurred and find that digital image. None of this is like, for example, a cop doing a traffic stop because you were speeding. When he runs your tag on the street, he’s not calling up Chevrolet to find out, Hey, where did this car get shipped to after it was manufactured? Which retailer sold it? And then which state issued the notice of registration to the registered owner?
We don’t have any of that. So there’s a lot of footwork. Even those records that are in the out of business record system generally take us somewhere between 40 minutes to days to be able to find a record in there to complete a trace.
As far as the live records, those are active federal firearms licensees. We have a very good relationship with the federal firearms licensees throughout the country, despite what some folks like to say. And what we generally do is when we know, for example, I’m going to pick Smith & Wesson. Smith & Wesson is the manufacturer of this firearm that’s recovered at a crime scene. We will initially look at that firearm, and if it says that license, when that firearm was made, is out of business, we’re gonna look in out-of-business records to see if we could find the out-of-business record. If it says it’s an active licensee, we have to call people up. So we call up Smith & Wesson, and their folks are fabulous. They work us to the manufacturer date and when that item was actually shipped from Smith & Wesson to the distributor and then we call the distributor and then we find out which retailer it went to.
So it’s a very efficient process that we’ve done over the years but it takes time. None of these things are a live registry as people would believe. Now I will tell you, we understand the concerns that people have. Those same Senators that you hear about not complaining that we have a registry, but there’s a number of Senators and Congressmen that write letters saying that we should have a registry.
ATF does not want that. We know the value of tracing. We know how we can identify firearms traffickers, armed robbers, gang members, cartel members, other people committing violent crimes through tracing.
Director Cekada: That system is so valuable to us that we don’t ever want it to be turned into a registry because then we’d be in violation of the law and the law enforcement at large would lose these tools. We are 100% in compliance with the law.
We’ve had GAO visit ATF numerous times to include within the last few years. There’s been several third-party inspections of what goes on at ATF, and we welcome another one. I welcome folks to come in there. Frankly, whether it’s GAO or any other organization that would like to come in, I would suggest bringing people from the industry to see as well. Because the last thing I want people to do is not have faith that we are upholding the law, following the law, and holding our people to the policies that we have as well.
SNW: OK. Pretty comprehensive. So I think you answered that. I know we’re getting kind of down to our limits. So I want to just pick up on something that you just said, because this is something that I think you touched on as a concern because especially under the previous administration, a lot of people in the firearms community, you know, did lose confidence and lost faith in an ATF. And one of the concerns is dealing with the issue of accountability. When you have people screw up or act badly, are there consequences for that?
And I’ll give you, you know, give you two quick examples, ask you to comment on that. For example, as you know, earlier this year, there was new Form 1 guidance that included prompting people to send in pictures of the parts, which those of us, of course, that know the law also understand constructive possession and thou shalt not take the parts until you have the tax stamp in hand. But it appeared that that is exactly what ATF was doing.
Now, I recognize you’ve come out very strongly and said, we are not going to prosecute people for sending in photographs because we asked them to. Great. My question is, how did that happen? Because it certainly looks like either somebody didn’t understand constructive possession or, to be blunt, was trying to set a snare.
Director Cekada: No. And I get how it looks. I really do. Here’s the good and the bad of my position, right? I have the opportunity to change a lot of things. And I don’t like to say, well, that was the people before me. Yeah, it was. But guess what? As a director, I own that. And it’s my responsibility to make sure that all of my folks get on the same page and understand our policies, understand our position.
I will tell you what happened there. And it truly was, there was no malicious intent. We have such an influx of Chinese-made suppressors. And what happened was we did our own audit and saw that some folks had inadvertently registered Chinese-made suppressors, which are contraband in themselves. They’re coming into our country illegally. We are not doing anything to support contraband suppressors, contraband cigarettes, contraband vapes, and everything else China’s sticking it to us for every day.
So our folks were just trying to verify, hey, is this an actual suppressor that someone built—or is about to build, to be clear—or is it a fuel filter or 18-wheeler truck lug nuts that are actually a suppressor? That’s what the intention was.
As soon as I heard about it, I immediately ceased that process. We also eliminated on the Form 1, there was a box that infuriated people. ‘Why are you building this?’
SNW: Because I can.
Director Cekada: Correct. And there was no need for that box in the first place, right? We eliminated that because I didn’t want to give the opportunity for conflict with the American people and frankly, our folks.
Our job there, the folks at the National Services Center, their job is to provide customer service. They’re not federal agents. They’re not industry operations investigators. They’re there to review paperwork, review everything that they need to make sure they have the authorization from the FBI to let this transfer take place, document it, and move on, and to keep on working on that backlog to make sure that we don’t have a tremendous backlog.
We really streamlined this process, not to just turned a blind eye. We’re not doing that. But we also want to make sure that we are not asking questions that put people in a bad position on that. There’s no reason for it. And we’re also not trying to impede the transfer and folks enjoying their Second Amendment rights.
SNW: OK, appreciate that explanation.
Director Cekada: Can I add one more thing? I forgot to mention on the trace as well. One of the things I want to point out to you folks on the trace.
Myself, the administration, when I say the administration, the Trump administration, the Department of Justice and I, we worked very carefully because my agents as well who are in the field investigating these cases didn’t understand why we extended to a lifetime of record retention. We all shared the same concerns that, hey, maybe somebody does have the intention one day of trying to convert this. And that’s why in the NPRMs that are out there, we proposed a review of a new period, whether it’s 25 or 30 years, to bring us back to a reasonable time period for retention of out-of-business records.
But for the first time ever, we also proposed destroying those records that are outside that range so that nobody could ever create a registry. People should trust the government. And when Congress authorized us and mandated that we’re able to collect these out of business records for tracing purposes. They should never be worried about whether or not ATF can convert this into a registry in the future.
SNW: Okay. The other example I wanted to give, and this is again, this goes back to ATF rulings 82-2 and 82-8, which deal with open-bolt semi-automatics. And this is 44 years old, a 44-year-old thing in which it basically said, whether it’s the TEC-9s or the semi-automatic MAC-10s, it’s too easy to convert them to full auto. So we’re going to say ones manufactured after this date are illegal. Ones manufactured before it, however, are grandfathered in. And it’s there. It’s been in the statute for 44 years or not in statute in the reg or the finding for 44 years.
To my knowledge, it’s still on the ATF website. It’s not been rescinded. If it has been, it would be news to me, but I’m not infallible. But yet you had an ATF employee unilaterally abrogate that and basically testified. We’re talking about Jeffrey Bodell where he basically testified that pre-ban TEC-9s and pre-ban MAC-10s were prohibited, even though they were pre-ban. And I guess the question on this first is that, for those people who are fortunate enough to have those very collectible pre-ban open-bolt semi-automatics, not converted or anything, you know, should they be worried that even though that’s the guidance that we’ve all been operating under for 44 years, that that can be abrogated by an ATF employee?
Director Cekada: I would not say that an individual ATF employee can abrogate ATF guidance. I haven’t seen the particular testimony that you’re speaking of, so I can’t say one way or another on that. The NFA does have…there are some provisions, I should say, in the NFA and the internal revenue code that allow us as we shift interpretations to decide what the retroactive effect of those are. And I think some of the rulings there and also the pre-1981 auto sears and the like have to do with that provision.
But no, we don’t have individual employees who are shifting interpretations. We’ve actually added internally a lot of process to make sure that doesn’t happen. But that said, sometimes people are testifying in different capacities. And sometimes the question is, does this meet the literal terms of a statute?
The answer might be one way or another, but there might be, again, additional provisions like the forbearance provisions where ATF can say, it is this way, but we’re not giving certain kinds of retroactive effect to it. So again, without getting into the specific case, I think people say things in different circumstances and people shouldn’t be worried that a single employee is determining the agency’s policies. We have formal procedures to go over.
SNW: Well, again, I’d be happy to provide you with the testimony and the report in which I don’t see how you square the circle between what was, is very clearly in both rulings 82 two and 82 eight and his testimony and his report to the court. Uh, I just don’t see how that is.
And that comes back to the issue of, and I’ll just ask this is, in fact, Jeffrey Bodell, F.O.E. Jeffrey Bodell, is he still employed by ATF?
Director Cekada: I’m not going to go deep into this answer because he’s a current employee. He is an employee, but I’m not going to. We’re not allowed to discuss, you know, any of our personnel matters publicly, to be frank, but he is he is an employee. So I will give you that answer.
SNW: OK, well, that was the question because I know that’s a concern for us. Well again, we’ve we’ve eaten up pretty much all the time. I want to let you finish with two things. First, you know, you’ve you’ve done your work in terms of righting a ship that I think a lot of Americans were ready to see crash in terms of ATF being disbanded. And I think that that has changed a lot because of what you’ve done. What would you say, if you were to sum up, and say what you think your proudest accomplishment so far has been?
Director Cekada: Look, I’ll say this. I’ve been working with ATF since 1994 while I was a police officer and a detective in New York City. I’ve been very much focused on violent crime from that time. To present time. Now, to be frank, I haven’t done any sort of investigative work in several years now, since I’ve been in a different position. But our people, they pivoted. They pivoted the right way.
And by the way, I want you to know I was here during the last administration. They were very vocal across the board, pushing back at the things that were being done with the enhanced revocation policy, zero tolerance, as it was called. A lot of things that were being pushed under the Biden administration, folks pushed back hard.
And I know there’s folks in the public that say, ah, you should just quit your job. I worked for different leadership, mayors, governors, Presidents, that I didn’t vote for. And they won. And the answer can’t just be quitting, right? Because if we quit, those people win forever. And I think the ATF employees under my watch stood strong, the ones that stayed into the Trump administration.
They’ve helped me to turn the ship around quickly. We have things that we need to fix. I’m not going to sit here and say it’s perfect. There’s a lot more to do. As Robert [Leider] mentioned, we did several things. We came up with a classification review board. I’d like to take credit for inventing that, [but] I didn’t. I found the memo that dated back to the early 70s and said, hey, we should bring classifications up to the director’s level.
Myself, the deputy director, our executive leadership team, we should know when a decision is made that’s going to impact the industry and the American people at large. And frankly, not [just] to make folks happy, we should make sure we’re doing the right thing. And if they’re happy because we did the right thing, then it’s a home run.
But I think in the past, a lot of these decisions as to what something was classified as or not were done at a much lower level at the National Services Center Firearms and Technology Division. And we’ve removed that. That’s not the process anymore.
The same with the revocation process. We’ve put checks and balances in where, yes, the field can make a recommendation, but it’s not the individual director of industry operations that can say, hey, this person’s losing their license because A, B, C, and D. They can make a recommendation. It’s going to go all the way up to the headquarters level through multiple chains of command. People are going to ask a lot of questions, and they’re going to make sure that, hey, if they did in fact commit a willful violation of the GCA that put the public in jeopardy,
then we will hold them accountable or come up with some sort of pathway forward to ensure that they’re not doing that again.
We’ve—I think, as a team, my team is what makes me proud. We’ve got good people here. I know the easy answer is get rid of the ATF. That can happen, but I caution people. I talked to a lot of people in the industry for a long time. What will happen is that the authority will transfer to another agency. And although I love the FBI, the DEA, and the Marshals, I can assure you it will be an uphill battle for the public and the industry to deal with law enforcement agencies that don’t know about our relationships with the industry. They don’t look at the Second Amendment the same way that we do either, despite making mistakes many times over the years.
But I think we’re on a really good pathway to not only change internal policies, policies are important, but changing culture to make sure everybody’s on the same page and understands that we’ve been given an opportunity to defend the Constitution and defend the amendments that come along with the Constitution, in particular the Second Amendment, and people have entrusted us to do that.
SNW: Okay, well we greatly appreciate you giving us a little bit more time. I know you’re very busy today with all of, I’m sure there being plenty of press inquiries today. Again, we greatly appreciate your time today. And if there’s anything else you’d like to say to our audience, either one of you. Robert?
Director Cekada: Just stay tuned and watch our website for updates.
SNW: I will look forward to reading the guidance and reporting on that. Again, until next time, gentlemen, thank you so much.