Broomhandles
- Thread starter Thorerik
- Start date
AFAIK, original Luger and Mauser pistols with original shoulder stocks have been removed from the purview of the NFA and declared to be C&R. But that applies only to original guns and stocks. That does not necessarily mean a stock numbered to the gun, only one contemporary with the gun. Reproduction stocks on original guns, or vice versa, are still considered short barrel rifles and are illegal unless registered.
Jim
Jim
Also note that the agency has changed their minds on this several times over the years, and might do so yet again.
At one time, no stocks were allowed (other than as registered NFA items), then originals (period manufacture) were allowed. At another time, if the gun was on the C&R list, a repo stock could be used, without fear of prosecution. Now we are apparently back to only proper period manufacture stocks may be used without NFA registry.
And, to further complicate matters, determining if a stock is a period original is done based only on the condition of the stock (appearance), as there were no numbering or dating systems or markings on the originals.
The best advice I can give is to ask the BATFE what is, and is not a prosecutable offense, and get an answer in writing, on their letterhead, with a signature, and a date. Do not take anyone's word alone. Even mine.
At one time, no stocks were allowed (other than as registered NFA items), then originals (period manufacture) were allowed. At another time, if the gun was on the C&R list, a repo stock could be used, without fear of prosecution. Now we are apparently back to only proper period manufacture stocks may be used without NFA registry.
And, to further complicate matters, determining if a stock is a period original is done based only on the condition of the stock (appearance), as there were no numbering or dating systems or markings on the originals.
The best advice I can give is to ask the BATFE what is, and is not a prosecutable offense, and get an answer in writing, on their letterhead, with a signature, and a date. Do not take anyone's word alone. Even mine.
I had a Red 9 with original stock registered in 1968, and when they ruled that that combination was no longer an SBR, I wrote asking that it be removed from the NFRTR. They replied that they had done so. (Whether any federal agency ever actually removes anything from a data base is questionable, but I kept the letter.)
Jim
Jim
"Also note that the agency has changed their minds on this several times over the years, and might do so yet again."
While Congress foolishly granted the ATF with all the functions of government (the ability to write, enforce, and rule upon gun laws), they do typically do a decent job of putting out letters indicating their current state of enforcement. The only letter I've seen on these stocks (2010 or so, IIRC) specifically states original stocks or "Identical" reproductions (ironically the same term used to define eligibility for 922r requirements, which encompass firearms configurations very different in appears from what may be imported) are acceptable.
I purchased a C96 recently which has the stock slot, and Centerfire Systems has a very nice looking reproduction for sale, so I asked this question over on THR a while back. No one seemed to know there, either, but were content to assume the ATF had seen fit to infringe upon us. The way I figure it, this question has been asked/addressed so many times there is little potential harm* in asking yet again.
*It is really dumb to ask the ATF questions carelessly especially vague ones, since each is an opportunity for them to clarify undefined positions against us. While a certain unaddressed action may bring their hammer down upon you in certain situations (like if you are a drug kingpin), if they've issued a letter on the action and see you are in violation they will take notice.
TCB
While Congress foolishly granted the ATF with all the functions of government (the ability to write, enforce, and rule upon gun laws), they do typically do a decent job of putting out letters indicating their current state of enforcement. The only letter I've seen on these stocks (2010 or so, IIRC) specifically states original stocks or "Identical" reproductions (ironically the same term used to define eligibility for 922r requirements, which encompass firearms configurations very different in appears from what may be imported
) are acceptable.I purchased a C96 recently which has the stock slot, and Centerfire Systems has a very nice looking reproduction for sale, so I asked this question over on THR a while back. No one seemed to know there, either, but were content to assume the ATF had seen fit to infringe upon us. The way I figure it, this question has been asked/addressed so many times there is little potential harm* in asking yet again.
*It is really dumb to ask the ATF questions carelessly especially vague ones, since each is an opportunity for them to clarify undefined positions against us. While a certain unaddressed action may bring their hammer down upon you in certain situations (like if you are a drug kingpin), if they've issued a letter on the action and see you are in violation they will take notice.
TCB
A basic problem with BATFE, inherited from their original position as part of IRS, is to deal with questions on an ad hoc basis. In other words, unless it is on some common point, each question will receive an individual response, which might not be the same as a previous response by another agent to the same question. Also, remember that responses will change as the law and regulations change.
Some time back, some folks making rifles assured their customers that the product was legal, based on a decades-old letter sent to someone else. Not only was the letter not applicable to that manufacturer, it had been superseded by a change in the law, and wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. So if the point is one likely to be subject to contention, it is best to obtain a current BATFE letter, from their HQ; don't take the word of an agent, a field office, or from anyone on a web site or at the gun store (including me!).
Jim
Some time back, some folks making rifles assured their customers that the product was legal, based on a decades-old letter sent to someone else. Not only was the letter not applicable to that manufacturer, it had been superseded by a change in the law, and wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. So if the point is one likely to be subject to contention, it is best to obtain a current BATFE letter, from their HQ; don't take the word of an agent, a field office, or from anyone on a web site or at the gun store (including me!).
Jim