Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50

Thread: Illegal?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New Mexico, USA.
    Posts
    4,679

    Default

    I think you are opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. The 1981 letter concerns reproduction stocks for Lugers and Browning Hi-Power pistols. The 1999 letter addresses Canadian Inglis produced guns outside of the purview of the 1981 letter. The 1981 letter grants legality to reproduction stocks for the Luger and Browning Hi-Power pistols. However, the 1999 letter specifically does not extend this exemption to reproduction stocks for the Inglis guns. It in no way removes the exemption for Lugers and Browning Hi-Powers granted in the 1981 letter.
    If it is made after 1918...it is a reproduction.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    , PA, USA.
    Posts
    836

    Default

    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

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    , TN, USA.
    Posts
    140

    Default

    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 What is the 1981 letter is a forgery, or rescinded, or ruked an error by the BATF?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,929

    Default

    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
    "but officer, this car won't go 162 mph"

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New Mexico, USA.
    Posts
    4,679

    Default

    "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.
    If it is made after 1918...it is a reproduction.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    , Montana, USA.
    Posts
    986

    Default

    Ron

    AMEN

    Bill

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    , TN, USA.
    Posts
    140

    Default

    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New Mexico, USA.
    Posts
    4,679

    Default

    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
    If it is made after 1918...it is a reproduction.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    , TN, USA.
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Sorry to upset you. Maybe this letter I just found ALLOWING C96 reproduction stocks will help you feel a bit better.

    S-BATF.gif

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New Mexico, USA.
    Posts
    4,679

    Default

    Thank you John. That is good research, and that letter goes right along with the 1981 letter ALLOWING LUGER AND BROWNING reproduction stocks.
    If it is made after 1918...it is a reproduction.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •