ATF Seen as Lax in Rules on Assault Weapons

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has for years been allowing arms dealers to import tens of thousands of assault weapons that apparently fail to meet standards written by top officials of the agency.

Those standards--contained in a 1989 report obtained by The Times through the Freedom of Information Act--will probably play a key role in the Clinton administration’s review of whether the ATF has been lax in blocking shipments of high-powered weapons.

Although not widely circulated, the report is considered highly significant because it provides the agency’s most comprehensive analysis of what kinds of weapons can be lawfully imported.

It states that under a 1968 federal law, foreign firearms must be for “sporting purposes” only, such as “target shooting, skeet and trap shooting, and hunting.” The report said most weapons used for hunting are not semiautomatic. The vast majority of sporting weapons, the agency said, do not have grips that can be used for one-handed combat shooting and do not use large ammunition clips.

What’s more, the report stressed that the law should be interpreted restrictively--meaning that any of those non-sporting characteristics could be potential grounds for barring a weapon from U.S. soil.

Since the report was written, however, documents and interviews suggest that the agency has strayed from its own advice, approving firearms that would not meet a conservative application of the law. Among them:

* The SLR-95. Approved for import last summer, this weapon is similar in design and function to a military-style Bulgarian AK47--a resemblance not lost on marketers of the rifle. In the October issue of Shotgun News, an ad urges buyers to “purchase this gun before it is banned forever.”

* The WUM-1. This gun is comparable to the Romanian AK47 and fires bullets with more wounding power than those unleashed by an assault rifle specifically banned by federal law, the AR-15.

* The SAR 4800. Ads for this weapon boast that it is an “exact model and fully interchangeable” with the banned Belgian FN-FAL, which is among a group of military-style rifles that the ATF acknowledges is “designed for killing and disabling the enemy.”

* The SAR 8. Billed in gun publications as a “counter sniper rifle,” it is the successor to the California-banned HK-91 and PSG-1 assault rifles.

*

Although ATF officials declined repeated requests for interviews, they have said in the past that they have no authority to ban imports that technically comply with the 1994 federal assault weapons law--a position that Sen. Dianne Feinstein and 29 colleagues disputed in a letter to President Clinton three months ago.

The senators argued that the 1994 statute--which restricts specifically named assault guns and more broadly prohibits certain military-style features--is superseded by the more limiting “sporting purposes” test of the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Feinstein said in an interview that, by failing to strictly enforce that test, the ATF has improperly approved numerous weapons and jeopardized the public safety.

“To say that these weapons meet the sporting purposes test makes a mockery of the word ‘sport,’ ” said the California Democrat, who wrote the 1994 law.

Feinstein has found support for her position in a newly completed study by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress.

That study, although remaining neutral in its conclusions, found that the ATF has used its virtually “unbridled discretion” to interpret the “sporting” law in a way that has been generous toward gun importers.

Some of the very weapons approved in this fashion are now at the heart of the White House’s review of the ATF--and prompted the president last month to suspend all assault weapon imports.

In determining whether the shipments should resume, the Clinton administration probably will review a number of internal ATF documents, including the 1989 “sporting purposes” study, written for President George Bush.

Bush ordered the study to help him--like Clinton now--decide whether to permanently ban the importation of dozens of assault weapon models. At the time, even though the law said only sporting guns could be imported, there was no detailed definition of what that meant.

But even after crafting one eight years ago--leading to a banning of 43 weapons--the agency apparently has done little since to implement it. Many analysts and observers say they are not surprised. They contend that the agency has often displayed an aversion to cracking down on the gun industry, especially when confronted with relentless pressure by the National Rifle Assn. and other pro-gun groups.

Said UC Berkeley law professor Frank Zimring, a leading expert on the politics of gun issues: “The ATF’s role varies between neutral and protective.”

ATF documents lend weight to that view.

In a letter to gun importers on Jan. 17, the head of the ATF’s import branch for firearms and explosives said the agency was working hard to provide faster information on the status of weapon applications. “One of the main goals of this branch,” the official wrote, “is to find ways we can improve the level of service we provide to you, our customers.”

If anyone should be counted as customers, agency critics say, it should be members of the public.

ATF correspondence also shows that the agency has provided advice to would-be assault weapon importers on how to meet the technicalities of the law--advice that did not affect the lethal firepower of the guns.

*

In one case, an ATF expert advised a Dallas firm that its AK47-type rifle would be approved if it simply removed a fitting allowing the attachment of a bayonet.

In another case earlier this year, the ATF advised a Connecticut importer to make a slight design change to the bolt of a weapon that the ATF said was very similar to that of a banned Uzi rifle.

Gun importers say they appreciate the help.

“We work closely with ATF, not to skirt the law but to comply,” said Jonathan Mossberg, head of Uzi America, a firm that recently obtained permission from the agency to import Israeli-made weapons.

Former Undersecretary of the Treasury Ronald Noble said he too sees no problem with the relationship.

“If the advice they are giving leads to changes that take the weapon out of the assault weapon category, that is a good thing . . . as long as ATF is not giving the manufacturers ways to circumvent the law,” said Noble, whose former department oversees the ATF.

Others disagree, including ex-ATF Director Stephen E. Higgins. He said the agency he headed for 11 years, until late 1993, should not be in the business of offering advice to companies seeking to increase the nation’s arsenal.

“I have a problem suggesting that you do this and you do that,” Higgins said. “To me, it’s enough to tell them what’s objectionable.”

Less diplomatic was Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, which supports gun control.

“What [ATF officials] are doing,” he said, “is giving them free design analysis on how to get their weapons into the country, when everyone knows the intent of the law was to ban specific weapons.”