C.F.R. » Title 27 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER B—FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION › PART 479—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS › Subpart C—Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

27 C.F.R. § 479.24

Destructive device determination

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Director shall determine in accordance with 26 U.S.C. 5845(f), whether a device is excluded from the definition of a destructive device. A person who desires to obtain a determination under that provision of law for any device which he believes is not likely to be used as a weapon shall submit a written request, in triplicate, for a ruling thereon to the Director. Each such request shall be executed under the penalties of perjury and contain a complete and accurate description of the device, the name and address of the manufacturer or importer thereof, the purpose of and use for which it is intended, and such photographs, diagrams, or drawings as may be necessary to enable the Director to make his determination. The Director may require the submission to him, of a sample of such device for examination and evaluation. If the submission of such device is impracticable, the person requesting the ruling shall so advise the Director and designate the place where the device will be available for examination and evaluation.

[36 FR 14256, Aug. 3, 1971. Redesignated at 40 FR 16835, Apr. 15, 1975, and amended by T.D. ATF-48, 44 FR 55842, Sept. 28, 1979]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2010–2015 · leading case: Abdel-Fattah v. Comm'r, 134 T.C. 190 (Tax Ct. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abdel-Fattah v. Comm'r, 134 T.C. 190 (Tax Ct. 2010). “Pursuant to 27 C.F.R. sections 479.24 and 479.25 (2009), a taxpayer requests such a determination from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), but before ATF makes any ruling, the manufacturer may claim and sue for a refund of firearms tax.”
United States v. Berres, 777 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2015). “Berres points to 27 C.F.R. § 479.24 , which allows an individual to request a determination as to whether a device qualifies under § 5845(f).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.