Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner

Illegal?

12K views 49 replies 19 participants last post by  johnboy 
#1 ·
#2 ·
Technically not leagal. Since the LP08 and Navy stocks are very similar and the dimensions are close, chances are pretty good that it wouldn't be an issue...but you come across an agent on a bad day and you could find yourself in deep doodoo. It is a violation of the regs and I wouldn't take the chance.
 
#3 ·
Ron, That was my take on it. The ATF states ONLY a navy with a Navy and ONLY an Artillery with an Artillery.

I don't know where this fellow came up with an exemption for display purposes?

For a full FFL dealer this sounds like a goofy thing to say.

This is promenently displayed on the front page of his web site: All local, state and federal firearms laws must be complied with.
 
#4 ·
Do repro Navy stocks attached to a Navy luger and a repro artillery stock attached to an artillery luger constitute a legal arrangement? Maybe the sophistication of the BATF agent may not be up to recognizing a repro from an original, assuming the repro is a faithful reproduction.
 
#5 ·
Do repro Navy stocks attached to a Navy luger and a repro artillery stock attached to an artillery luger constitute a legal arrangement?
Yes...provided that the respective reproduction stock exactly or closely replicates the original. Therein lies the rub...depending on the expertise of the evaluator, how close is close enough? Generally the reproduction must fairly closely conform in material, configuration and size to the original. An eighth of an inch discrepancy probably isn't an issue...a couple of inches may well be.
 
#7 ·
Thanks guys, it's reassuring to know that. I often shoot my 6 inch rebarrelled "shooter" with regular rear sights attached to my repro Navy stock at our local indoor shooting range. The staff comments: "Wow, he's shooting a WW! Navy luger!" I've even had off duty police officers and California Highway Patrol officers (practicing of course) check out my rig. Ignorance of the 100% real thing gets me by without a hitch. I've been doing this for several years. Be aware that I never attach that stock to a 4 inch luger! It's really fun to shoot and extremely accurate.I don't cut that famous Ron Wood profile firing off rounds from his stocked Borchardt but I try a little.
 
#8 ·
I would question as to how many ATF agents {or any other cops} are sophisticated enough to be able to tell an Artillery stock from a Navy stock. I've known law enforcment types in the recent past that thought the selector on a 712 Mauser was a safety:rolleyes: Sure, converted dope guns, ARs, AKs, MACs, TECs, high end collector stuff, not so much.
Michael
 
G
#9 ·
Legal?

You'd likely get different answers from different BATFE agents. IF the BATFE followed the letter of the law they espouse, The rig would be deemed illegal, but the BATFE doesn't really have expertise in that (or other) area. Typical government agency. They say one thing one day and another the next day so..........BEWARE.

I've also come to believe that a Seller will say and do anything to make a sale, including giving his/her interpretation of the law and expecting everyone to believe it. JMHO

The BATFE regularly watches things like this auction. Who knows what they are thinking? BUT, all else aside, it is a repo'd tangled mess. I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole....in any case....
 
#10 ·
I entered into a short conversation with this seller..he was cocky to say the least and told me he was a law enforcement officer. had gone to the trouble to call the ATF office in Hartford and they said attaching a Navy stock to an Artillery was OK for "display" Purposes. The fellow at the ATF is a fool IF he told a seller this and the seller is a bigger fool to offer the pistol and stock together knowing it is illegal by ATF regulations. Ignorance of the law is no excuse your Honor.

I guess he no longer believes the agent in hartford as he has removed the pistol and stock photo from the listing.

What really disturbs me is that he continues to want to sell the Artillery pistol WITH the repro Navy stock..After he has been told it is an illegal rig he continues to try and ensnare a potential customer and saddle them with it!

It would be so easy and legal to simply seperate them into different auctions. As an FFL dealer he is entering into a very risky sale.
 
#13 ·
John, unsure of your posting?

A person can request for an exception, but the regulations specifically state that the artillery luger may be used with an artillery stock and that a navy luger may be used with a navy stock and that a 1900 may be used with an Ideal stock, etc.

Its pretty clear, but perhaps that is what you meant?

I do think someone should make a request that any stock in original configuration should be used with any luger. And the 4 inch would be fine, as it is legal to put a stock on other revolvers and auto's that have short barrels.


Ed
 
#14 ·
It may be technically illegal to add a stock like that but has anyone ever been charged and prosecuted for doing something like this?
Besides I think the BATF has a lot more items to be concerned about at present like the thousands of semi auto "Assault rifles" the allowed to walk across the border into Mexico during Operation Gun Runner.
Oh and this is the same BATF and AG that has been blaming individuals sellers and gun shows in States such as mine for the semi "Assault weapons" that have been used in other crimes there.
Jim
 
#15 ·
Jim, technically illegal? Reminds me of being technically pregnant. Either you are... or you aren't.

Seems like a no brainer to me. has anyone ever been charged and prosecuted for doing something like this? I can't say but it's certainly possible.

One reason I brought this up was that the seller of this combination was selling it as a shooter combination. IMO he was trying to drag an unwitting buyer into purchasing a combination that is in fact.... illegal to shoot together.

I would have no complaint if he were offering them seperately..that would be perfectly legal.... but to offer them together as a shooting combination is criminal. Not technically criminal... but criminal. There is no other way to view it. The BATFE regulations are quite clear IMO.

The seller..when informed of the BATFE regulations... blew it off with the same opinion that you have..it's technical. I could care less if an individual wants to knowingly break the law on his own account, take your Artillery with a Navy stock to the range..OK. But to KNOWINGLY offer an illegal shooting combination for sale? I just don't think it's right to drag an innocent buyer into your crimes.

Jerry Burney
 
#18 ·
Jerry:
This gentleman makes my point is stating "technically illegal". From a practical viewpoint only a collector can tell the difference in stocks and that certainly is NOT your typical agent.
Jim
 
#19 · (Edited)
What I don't understand is how they came up with that stupid law in the first place.When you put a Navy with a Navy stock you have
a total overall lenght of 23''and with a Artillery a total of24''. That makes the Navy 1'' longer with the Artillery stock on it.The Artillery
with a Artillery stock is a total 26''. The Artillery with a Navy stock on it is a total of 25''on 1''shorter.How did they come up with that
stupid law.I myself think the that law should be brought up and tested by The National Rifel Assoaction.What do the rest of you think?
Thanks George
P.S.I have to admit I would rather be one inch longer than one inch shorter.
 
#20 ·
As I understand it now, it's a matter of the right stock being on the right gun, not the assembled length. I guess you know, that stupid law, and several others like it are leftovers from original 1928 National Firearms Act. You know the one, where the ownership of about anything that is fun to own is banned {unless, of course you want to pay the money} Anyway, all stocked pistols were caught under the 'Pistol Carbine or Short Barreled Rifle' clause. That's why you still see so many Luger, Broomhandle, and any other kind of pistol stock missing their attachment parts.
Then ya had guys like me that flagged the Feds with both fingers and owned anything we wanted, carefully. {But we don't do that any more, noooooooooo}
Mike
 
#21 ·
Remember that the list of exception from NFA firearms exists to allow collectors to acquire and own historically significant firearms and configurations. That is why the list is a patchwork of individual and odd exceptions. The combination of a Navy Luger with it's Navy stock board is historically significant, as is an Artillery Luger with it's Artillery stock. The combination of components that never left the factory together is not historically significant... Of course, I suppose that someone on the battlefield happened to group a mismatch together because it worked just fine...

We should probably consider ourselves fortunate that ATF included exact reproductions as qualifying for the exemption. The same thing applies to a range of firearms... New exact repro wood stocks on a M1 Garand keep it C&R, etc...

Statutory law (the laws written in our legal statutes at federal, state and local levels) are a patchwork of lobbying and compromises that are formed by large committees (congress). Statute law is getting so complicated that it's almost impossible to start a new business in some jurisdictions.

The C&R NFA exemption list comes out of a bureaucratic organization authorized and guided by statutory law. Politics, favoritism, and any number of things could be influencing those decisions. All of this takes place in the context of a society with an appreciable population that just doesn't like firearms. The bureaucrats and politicians are unlikely to do anything to help firearms collectors without positive public pressure. We scare a lot of people that think what we're interested in is threatening.

With that understood, how do we want to be perceived by the general public? Certainly not by breaking the regulations we're saddled with today...

Marc
 
#26 ·
I am not Ed, but I can answer your question. Yes, it is OK. As a matter of fact, according to BATFE rules the Ideal stock is only legal with American Eagle Lugers. This includes the Model 1900, 1902 and 1906.
Ron
 
#23 ·
"Luger, German model 1914, Artillery model pistol, mfd. by DWM or Erfurt, having chambers dated
1914 –1918, bearing Imperial German military proofmarks & accompanied by original,
German mfd., artillery type, detachable wooden shoulder stocks."

Doesn't say anything about reproduction stocks being allowed. Anyone have anything in writing by the BATF?
 
#28 ·
I found a copy of the text of the 1999 letter which contradicts the 1981 letter:
I Emailed my (Republican Pro GUN) Senator to see if he would see about getting a favorable resolution to the contradiction)
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20226

MAR 12 1999

903050:RDC
3311

Dear :


This refers to your letter of January 4, 1999, In which you inquire
about the legality of purchasing a replica shoulder stock for your
Canadian Inglis No. 1 Chinese contract Browning Hi Power 9mm semi
automatic pistol having a serial number that begins with the letter
"CH".

27 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 178, section 178.11,
defines the term "curio or relic" as firearms which are of special
interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is
associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offense or
defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms
must fall within one of the following categories:

(a) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the
current date, but not including replicas thereof;

(b) Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal,
State, or Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or
relics of museum interest; and

(c) Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their
monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or
because of their association with some historical figure, period,
or event. Proof of qualification of a particular firearm under
this category may be established by evidence of present value and
evidence that like firearms are not available except as collector's
items, or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary
commercial channels is substantially less.

- 2 -

Mr.

The Bureau has previously determined that the Canadian Inglis No.
1 Chinese contract Browning Hi Power 9mm semiautomatic pistol
accompanied by an original Canadian manufactured detachable wooden
holster/shoulder stock is a "curio or relic" as defined in 27 CFR,
Part 178, section 178.11. This specific pistol and shoulder stock
combination has been determined to be primarily a collector's item
and not likely to be used as a weapon. The combination is
therefore removed from the provisions of the National Firearms Act
(NFA).

A Canadian Inglis No. 1 Chinese contract browning Hi Power 9mm
semiautomatic pistol with a compatible reproduction
holster/shoulder stock is still subject to all of the provisions of
the NFA. Individuals desiring to acquire a reproduction
holster/shoulder stock for their Canadian Inglis No. 1 must first
submit and have approved ATF Form 1 "Application to Make and
Register a Firearm" and pay the applicable $200 making tax.

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.



Sincerely yours,

[signed]
Edward M. Owen, Jr.
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
 
#29 ·
I found a copy of the text of the 1999 letter which contradicts the 1981 letter:
I Emailed my (Republican Pro GUN) Senator to see if he would see about getting a favorable resolution to the contradiction)
John,
I see absolutely nothing in the 1999 letter, which addresses Inglis pistols, that contradicts or rescids the 1981 letter which pertains to Lugers. Perhaps you could point out the contradiction to me?
Ron
 
#30 ·
1981 letter in part: "This refers to your letters of March 13 and March 30, 1981, in
which you ask that certain Luger and Browning Hi-Power pistols
equipped with reproduction shoulder stocks be considered for
removal from the provisions of the National Firearms Act."
So the 1999 letter contradicts the 1981 letter about the hi powers for sure and probably about other C& R pistols as well.

It brings into question whether the BATF still considers the 1981 letter valid or if they even remember it. Not a good situation to be asking "What about the 1981 letter" as you are in handcuffs on the way to jail and your gun collection is being tossed into the back of a vehicle like so much scrap metal which is what they are hoping it soon will be..
 
#31 ·
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.
 
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