Our Supreme Court declared, “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process ... [O]ur system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness.” With this in mind, we turn to the current violation of due process: convictions based on the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record when its “files are missing.”This Article analyzes the issues surrounding the National Firearms Act [NFA], in particular the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record [NFRTR], and how law-abiding citizens are being deprived of their Due Process rights, because of the inaccuracy of the NFRTR, while the courts believe the NFRTR to be trustworthy. In point of fact, in June 2007, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [BATFE] had lost all record of a registered firearm, which it had approved in April 2007. The NFRTR, established by the NFA and administered by the BATFE, has been in disarray since the late 1970’s. In 1996, amid numerous complaints of unjust criminal prosecutions by the BATFE, a citizen supplied reliable evidence, that raised doubts about the accuracy and completeness of the NFRTR, to the House Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, Committee on Appropriations, and then again in 1997, after inaction by Committee, he complained to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, which ordered the Treasury Department Inspector General to audit the NFRTR; resulting in two reports being rendered in 1998. While the BATFE continues to prosecute and convict individuals based on its contention that their firearm registration records cannot be found within the NFRTR, the BATFE also declared that errors in the NFRTR could result in the improper arrest, prosecution, and conviction of an innocent person, who had simply lost his paperwork, and for whom the agency had no records. Thus, it is imperative that our Judicial System take action, and find, as a matter of law, that the NFRTR, in its current state, is not sufficient in criminal and civil proceedings. Moreover, the United States Government must take immediate action, in the form of an amnesty, to ensure that law-abiding citizens are not convicted of Possession of Unregistered Firearms because the BATFE lost his/her paperwork, although the individual properly registered the firearm, but through no fault of his/her own, the paperwork was lost or destroyed. A brief introduction is set forth in Section I. Section II is a background of the firearm laws at issue, broken into the following subsections: A. the 1934 NFA; B. BATFE; C. Gun Control Act [GCA] of 1968; D. 1968 Amnesty; E. the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act [FOPA]; and F. NFA Registration Process and Penalties. Section III explains the NFRTR. The emergence of the inaccuracy of the NFRTR is discussed in Section IV., proceeded by Section V. depicting the numerous Congressional Hearings and cases related thereto, which is broken down into the following subsections: A. 1934-1980; B. 1980-1995; C. 1995-1998; D. 1998; E. 1999-2002; and F. 2003-2008. The absence of paperwork is not a defense is discussed in Section VI. and is broken down into subsections: A. Error Letters; B. the BATFE’s Improper Denial of Exculpatory Evidence; C. the Accuracy and Completeness of the NFRTR; and D. Firearm Law Experts on the absence of paperwork as a defense and the status of the NFRTR generally. The intersection of Procedural Due Process violations is discussed in Section VII. and the Federal Rules of Evidence and the NFRTR follows in Section VIII. The issue of the Confrontation Clause and the admission of the NFRTR as evidence is discussed in Section IX. The solution, a new amnesty, is discussed, in depth, in Section X and broken into the subsections of A. Judicial; B. Legislative; C. BATFE Rationale for Refusing an Amnesty, and Rebuttals Thereof; and D. Amnesty. Lastly, Section XI concludes this article.