18 U.S.C. § 924(d) – 120-Day Limit for Firearm and Ammunition Forfeiture
When federal authorities seize firearms or ammunition, strict statutory deadlines govern when the government must initiate forfeiture proceedings.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1), Congress imposed an express time bar on the forfeiture of firearms and ammunition:
“Any action or proceeding for the forfeiture of firearms or ammunition shall be commenced within one hundred and twenty days of such seizure.”
18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1)
In many federal prosecutions, the government attempts to circumvent this 120-day limit by waiting months or years to file charges, then tacking on a criminal forfeiture allegation in the indictment under 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).
Federal prosecutors often argue that the 120-day clock only applies to civil judicial forfeiture lawsuits or does not start ticking until a federal agent physically touches or transfers the property into a federal vault.
Recent federal decisions, including United States v. Talbott, No. 4:26-cr-00004-RRB-SAO, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201447 (D. Alaska Aug. 14, 2026), reject the government’s attempts to bypass the statute, establishing that:
- The 120-day deadline applies directly to criminal forfeiture notices contained in an indictment under 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) if no administrative forfeiture proceeding was commenced; and
- When a federal agent or Task Force Officer (TFO) places an official federal “hold” on firearms held in state evidence custody, the federal government takes constructive possession, immediately triggering the 120-day clock.
Attorneys Defending Federal Firearm Seizures and Forfeiture
Asset forfeiture in federal criminal prosecutions requires quick procedural action.
Whether federal agents seize firearms during the execution of a federal search warrant, or local police seize weapons during a state investigation that is later adopted federally, federal prosecutors must strictly follow statutory deadlines.
At Sammis Law Firm, our criminal defense and asset forfeiture attorneys defend clients against federal firearms offenses—including felon in possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—and aggressively litigate accompanying forfeiture allegations.
We challenge improper federal adoptions, enforce statutory deadlines under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) and CAFRA (18 U.S.C. § 983), and file motions to dismiss time-barred forfeiture counts.
Contact our office to discuss your case with an experienced federal asset forfeiture lawyer.
Call 813-250-0500.
Does the 120-Day Limit Apply to Criminal Indictments Under 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)?
Federal prosecutors routinely argue that the 120-day deadline in § 924(d)(1) applies only to independent civil asset forfeiture lawsuits, not criminal forfeiture allegations added to an indictment under 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). The courts have squarely rejected this contention based on the plain language of the statute.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), if an Act of Congress authorizes forfeiture for a criminal violation, the government may include notice of the forfeiture in the indictment. However, Section 924(d)(1) uses expansive language, governing “[a]ny action or proceeding for the forfeiture of firearms or ammunition.”
If Congress intended to limit the 120-day rule strictly to civil in rem actions, it would have specified “civil action.”
As the court recognized in Talbott, reading § 2461 to exempt criminal forfeiture allegations would render the final sentence of § 924(d)(1) meaningless, giving prosecutors a blank check to evade the 120-day statutory bar simply by pursuing criminal forfeiture rather than filing a civil complaint.
While the government can satisfy the 120-day mandate by initiating an administrative forfeiture proceeding within 120 days of seizure (United States v. Miscellaneous Firearms, 376 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir. 2004)), if no administrative forfeiture action is initiated, the criminal forfeiture allegation itself must be commenced within 120 days of the seizure.
Constructive Custody and Federal Agency “Holds”
In many federal prosecutions, the underlying firearms were originally seized by municipal police officers, county sheriff’s deputies, or state troopers during a traffic stop or local arrest.
After the state criminal case resolves—or after the state declines to prosecute—federal agents often step in to prosecute the matter in federal district court.
Federal prosecutors frequently assert that the 120-day clock remains dormant until a federal agent physically moves the evidence from the state property room to a federal facility.
Federal case law confirms that constructive possession starts the clock.
In United States v. Talbott, state troopers seized a Winchester Ranger .30 caliber rifle and ammunition during a state investigation in October 2023. The state case resolved in 2024.
In December 2024, an FBI Task Force Officer (TFO) contacted the state evidence custodian and placed an official federal “hold” on the items to prevent their disposal or return to the owner, pending future federal charges.
The federal agent did not physically transport the rifle to an FBI evidence room until April 2026—over 16 months later—after a federal indictment was returned.
The court held that the federal “hold” exerted dominion and control over the property.
Because state custodians were prohibited from releasing or disposing of the firearm without federal authorization, the federal government had constructive possession starting in December 2024.
Because no administrative proceeding was commenced and the indictment was returned well past 120 days from that federal hold, the 120-day time limit had lapsed and the forfeiture allegation was barred.
Burden of Proof on a Motion to Dismiss Forfeiture Allegations
When challenging a criminal forfeiture allegation or civil complaint for firearms and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1), federal courts apply a burden-shifting framework.
The property owner must make a preliminary showing that the government failed to commence an administrative proceeding, civil action, or indictment-based forfeiture allegation within 120 days of the seizure or federal control (United States v. Fifty-Two Firearms, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2005)).
Once the defense makes that preliminary showing, the burden shifts to the government to prove that it either commenced an administrative or judicial proceeding within 120 days or that it did not assert custody or control over the property until a later date (United States v. Twelve Miscellaneous Firearms, 816 F. Supp. 1316 (C.D. Ill. 1993)).
Checklist for Challenging Federal Firearm Forfeitures
When evaluating whether a federal forfeiture allegation in an indictment or civil complaint is vulnerable to dismissal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1), defense counsel should review the following evidence:
- Determine Initial Seizure Date: Review state agency property receipts and arrest reports to establish the date state or local officers originally seized the property into evidence.
- Verify State Case Dispositions: Review state court docket sheets, declination memos, or sentencing entries to identify exactly when the state matter concluded.
- Subpoena State Evidence Room Records: Obtain the local police or sheriff’s department evidence logs, internal emails, and chain-of-custody transfer slips to identify the date a federal agent or Task Force Officer (TFO) submitted a written or oral “federal hold.”
- Check for Administrative Filings: Review whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), FBI, or Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) issued timely personal written notice or published an administrative forfeiture notice on forfeiture.gov.
- File a Motion to Dismiss: If more than 120 days elapsed between the date of constructive federal custody (the agency hold) and the indictment or administrative action, file a Motion to Dismiss or Strike the forfeiture allegation under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1).
This article was last updated on Friday, October 2, 2026.
