C&R Advertised but NOT Qualified as C&R

O

Onward Allusion

New member
I collect H&R revolvers. The older and mintier the better 'cause I'm cheap but still want old revolvers in my collection.

I recently ran across more than a few listings on Gunbroker where the Seller was selling the firearm as C&R eligible but in actuality they were not due to the age nor were they in any of the C&R Lists. I emailed one Seller and the guy's response was that they were. I know better but I'm sure there are more than a few folks on Gunbroker who do not. I feel like I did my part but how much liability is on the Buyer on something like this? How about the Seller? Just wondering here.
 
A very large percentage of H&R production would be C&R. Anything made before 1963 would be and the original H&R went out of business in 1986.

All their old breaktops would be C&R if not antiques, as would all their old solid frame revolvers, and their auto pistols.

As to compliance with the law, the burden is on the shipper/seller, not the buyer, to be sure the gun is C&R and that the recipient/buyer is appropriately licensed or, if not, to transfer to a licensed dealer. Unless you are directly concerned (i.e., you have received a non-C&R item on your 03 license), I can't see any point in making a big deal out of it.

Jim
 
According to 922(a)(3) and 922(a)(5) both parties are equally responsible for carrying out the transaction within the bounds of the law.

(a)(3) defines the purchaser's responsibilities and (a)(5) defines the seller's responsibility.
 
I know that legally it makes no difference, but does the law make any sense on this issue? Shouldn't it be based on when that EXACT design was patented or something? It is so foolish for identical guns to not be identically categorized.
 
A brand new clone of the Colt SAA is not C&R despite the design being 19th century. The gun has to 50 years old -OR- be specifically listed as qualified for reasons other than being 50 years old. Also, the powers that be have decreed that modified guns no longer qualify. So a 1909 Mauser with a sporter stock is not C&R because the ATF says nobody wants one since it has no value. Brilliant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, the law doesn't really make sense.

The first of the Colt AR-15's are now becoming of age for C&R status.

While there may have been some minor changes, functionally they're identical to the current platform.

To me, it would make more sense that a "C&R" FFL should allow the holder to purchase any firearm (other than SOT types) directly without an 01 intermediary. After all, you've already been through the background check so what's the purpose other than an additional fee? As long as the 03 FFL holder is not engaged in the business of buying/selling/repairing firearms and they're for personal use/collection seems it would make much more sense...
 
To me, it would make more sense that a "C&R" FFL should allow the holder to purchase any firearm (other than SOT types) directly without an 01 intermediary. After all, you've already been through the background check so what's the purpose other than an additional fee?
Click to expand...
Tobnpr, that makes way too much sense. Your political career is FAIL.
 
Actually, it would make more sense to get rid of C&R altogether and qualify older firearms as antique or not, allowing anyone without a license to buy them directly. It would cut down on paperwork and distractions from actual criminal firearm activities and make more sense.
 
I don't know if it would make any more sense, but some history might help understand the way the law came about.

When GCA '68 was being written, some wealthy and politically powerful collectors became alarmed that transactions with fellow collectors would have to be conducted through dealers, costing money and reducing the time they felt necessary for proper inspection. So they lobbied for special treatment for collectors, which included the C&R FFL. At that time, there was no 50-year rule and no blanket designation, nor did (then) ATTD begin the process. Each request for C&R designation had to be submitted separately (though it could be for a group of guns, like a special contract). Later the law was revised to allow the 50 year limit in effect today. As that begins to include guns like the AR-15, we can expect to see the already fanatic demand for an end to the C&R designation and the 03 FFL to increase.

Jim
 
"we can expect to see the already fanatic demand for an end tothe C&R designation and the 03 FFL to increase."
From my locked booby trapped center desk drawer!!!
 
As that begins to include guns like the AR-15, we can expect to see the already fanatic demand for an end to the C&R designation and the 03 FFL to increase.
Click to expand...
I've never heard anyone demand an end to the C&R designation. Who are these fanatics, and where do you find them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top