Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner

Illegal?

12K views 49 replies 19 participants last post by  johnboy 
#1 ·
#32 ·
Ron, I agree with you and the can o worms statement. I think this thread would sure help an over zealous ATF agent if he caught you with an artillery stock on your navy or vise versa. To bring a microscope down on this issue can have no good come out of it. If you are in a bind over shooting your C&R in a stocked configuration, I think there would be another reason he is really out to get you, and this is a technical violation he caught you with. John
 
#33 ·
By having one manufacturer of a type of pistols illegal with reproduction stocks and another legal confuses collectors. Also Artillery and Navy Lugers legal with their respective reproduction stocks and other rarer pistols not? It is dangerous to collectors who are not exempt from the legal rule that ignorance of the law is not a deference. What is the 1981 letter is a forgery, or rescinded, or ruked an error by the BATF?
 
#34 ·
I couldn't agree with Ron more. I had close association with both the BATF and the DEA from 1985 through 1997, {mostly involving converted automatic weapons} and I never knew of an instance of a shoulder stocked collectors pistol being questioned, not that it hasn't happened sometime, somewhere. In the first place, show me the BATF agent that can distinguish a 'well adjusted' repro Browning HP or Luger stock from an original. And, how about what I think would be the most common combination of pistol and repro stock, the C96 Mauser. Frankly, give me one of the old European made C96 repro stocks {brought in by Global in the mid sixties} and about 10 days, and most seasoned Mauser collectors would scratch their heads at it, I guarantee it. So, yes, personally, I think it's trying to scratch a spot that in all probability is never going to itch.
Michael
 
#35 ·
"By having one manufacturer of a type of pistols illegal with reproduction stocks and another legal confuses collectors."
Sorry about that. It is up to the collector to know the rules and abide by them. Then BATF has no recourse against them. A collector can't be considered a serious collector if he doesn't do the research and relies on others to spoon feed him/her on what is correct or isn't correct. You are correct that pleading ignorance is no defense.

"What is the 1981 letter is a forgery, or rescinded, or ruked an error by the BATF? "
The 1981 letter is not a forgery and playing these silly "what if" games serves no purpose. The situation is stable and will only become inflamed if some individual raises an unjustified issue and keeps pushing it. The adage "let sleeping dogs lie" applies here.
 
#37 ·
I am writing a book and I was doing research on the issue before I publish the reproduction shoulder stock use information as fact. I suppose I could just mention that I was unsure about the issue and refer the reader to the BATF for their current ruling on the matter. Myself I sure won't be attaching any reproduction stock to any C&R stock allowed pistol unless I have a BATF letter copy authorizing such attachment with it.
 
#38 ·
Feel free to drag the rest of us down with you. We have enjoyed relief from BATF involvement with properly stocked Lugers, both original and reproduction, for over 30 years. So I guess what we really need in the current atmosphere of anti-gun regulations is a paranoid upstart to bring it all to their attention and undo what others who went long before have accomplished. If you are indeed writing a book, you should stick with the facts rather than going off on tangents based on what you fail to comprehend in existing rules and regulations. I'm sorry to be such a grump on this, but you have struck a nerve
 
#41 ·
You are welcome. I just am still puzzled by the 1999 letter on the Inglis Browning Hi powers which heads in the opposite direction. Maybe there are pro and anti gun factions at the BATF sending out letters! I will continue researching the matter (without drawing attention from the BATF).
 
#43 ·
Hi John, As you've probably gathered, you're as popular around here as a turd in a swimming pool. I'm sorry if this sounds extreme, but many of us here have a lot more at stake in this issue than you seem to have. We don't want you to wake a sleeping tiger. Regards, Norm
 
#44 ·
OK you have convinced me that it is not a good idea to contact the BATF regarding this issue.
Here is a summery of what I have found searching the internet:
There is a 1981 letter allowing the use of reproduction Luger and High Power shoulder stocks
There is a 1999 letter disallowing the use of reproduction Inglis Browning Hi power stocks
There is a 2002 letter allowing the use of reproduction C96 stocks.
There MAY be a letter disallowing the use of reproduction Polish Radom stocks.
There is a BATF ruling that the possession of an unattached stock and pistol is intent to make a SBR and is a crime. (Unless it is a C&R exempt combination)
 
#45 ·
That pretty much covers what I understand also. A little amplification on the last point. Possession of a stock and a pistol without also having a corresponding C&R exempt pistol for the stock can be considered as intent to make a SBR. As an example, if you have an artillery stock and a 4" barreled Luger and do not also have an LP08 for the stock then technically you are in violation of the law.
 
#47 ·
Or, the obvious, do what I've done for 55 years, licenses or not. Buy what you like, don't flash it in front of every Tom, Dick, and their cousins brother in-law, and don't go to shows and lay out three tables of your prize 'maybes' for trolling BATF agents to inspect. I'm sorry, I've never lost sleep wondering if that Inglis HP stock or that S&W 9mm carbine was kosher. To me this would be a self inflicted problem. And, yes, I'm very 'old school' in the belief that what certain Government agencies don't know about can't hurt me, or them.
 
#50 ·
I find it amazing that we live in a country with "the right to keep and bear arms" and live in fear of arousing the ATF's attention at the same time.

I have never understood the "SBR" being anymore dangerous than any other rifle or pistol. Cut-down BARS were popular with gangsters like the Barows in the '30s making them illegal did nothing to stop the criminals from making them. If you lengthen a pistol it's a long gun, and if you shorten a rifle it's a pistol.

If you are a criminal laws don't affect you.

Now that we have arrived at this place the idea of pointing out ANY firearm to the ATF for any reason is stupid.

Whatever you do, don't read the C&R list to this guy.

PS its turd in a punch bowl
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top