| Author |
Message |
Tomf
Ink's Still Wet on My License!
Username: Tomf
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 5:57 pm: | |
Can a C&R FFL holder purchase just the receiver for a firearm that is on the ATF approved C&R list? I thought I read somewhere (another discussion group, maybe?) that it had to be the complete firearm. Purchasing just the receiver required going through a "regular" FFL holder. That sounds absurd, but I haven't been able to find official words one way or another. Can anyone help? |
Honduras_harry
Ink's Still Wet on My License!
Username: Honduras_harry
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 6:12 pm: | |
Sir,
Beware of believing anything you read on the BATF site or hear from a BATF rep. You do not want to make even one mistake here. The wording of the reg's is very arcane, and even though one provision makes a certain thing legal, another makes it illegal. I have been down this road before and have adhered to the "Henry Bowman" code to prevent problems. If you let me know what sort of receiver it is, I can probably tell you whether it is completely legal. Most every firearm is a special case unless it is prior to 1899 manufacture. ANY full auto, any pistol and any "Concealable" firearm is considered a class one for transfer purposes. The BATF considers anything smaller than a Browning M2 concealable if you catch them on a bad day. |
Tomf
Ink's Still Wet on My License!
Username: Tomf
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 9:02 pm: | |
This was a receiver for the MAS 49/56. This was to be the basis for a project. Since most of the parts would be replaced, it would not be necessary (read - economical) to purchase the complete rifle (approx $200 range ?), when a receiver can be had for less than $20.00.
The other thread that I was referring to was in regards to an M-1 carbine receiver that the individual purchased from SARCO, I believe. He complained that although a complete M-1 was eligible for a C&R purchase, he had to go through his local dealer to purchase the receiver. He stated that after he went through the cost of a FFL transfer, for a few bucks more he could have purchased a complete M-1 (probably slightly exaggerated, but we can see where he's coming from).
Is this just a firearm urban legend?
...slightly off topic - I think the stated intent of issuing C&R FFL's is to allow the individual to build up his/her collection of firearms...maybe inferring here that the firearm is "collectible" (by who ever's definition). If one is ever "audited" by the ATF, will they frown on these C&R firearms being extensively customized? In other words, if I buy an Argentine Sistemas and highly customize it with all the bells and whistles of a competition race gun, will the ATF keep account of that (an do a non-renew on your C&R FFL in three years)? Just wondering. |
Fuzzbean
Ink's Still Wet on My License!
Username: Fuzzbean
Post Number: 3
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 12:09 am: | |
My understanding is that the firearm must not only be complete, but in "original configuration." I may be abusing the quotation marks here, as I'm going by memory, but I'm pretty sure that's what the info that came with my C&R said.
Yet, I see lots of folks on the auction sites selling sporterized military rifles or even barrelled actions and saying "C&R OK." I suppose they are relying on common sense and don't know any better. And I suppose the BATF really does have better things to do with their time and our tax dollars than chase after licensed collectors who make tiny technical violations of the law that involve 50-year-old stripped receivers.
Unless they happen to be in a bad mood or not like you.
Obviously, as certain guns get rarer people are going to want to restore sporterized specimens to original configuration, which seems like a legitimate collector activity to me so long as they use original parts and are up front about what they've done. But I don't think the current laws are written that way. It's almost enough to make you want to write your congressman; but I get the distinct feeling that the less C&R's are brought to the attention of congress, the better off we all are.
About customizing, in my non-expert opinion, once you legally purchase it it's your property. As evidenced by the fact that you ARE allowed to occasionally sell firearms from your collection to non-licensees. |
Honduras_harry
Ink's Still Wet on My License!
Username: Honduras_harry
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 11:55 am: | |
You may find a human BATF Inspector, but mine would definitely consider any modification a violation. The reg's state (paraphrasing): The weapon shall remain in original form, or in a commonly recognized form documented by the military of issue. That means mounting a Mossberg pump to an M-16 is legal (so long as it is documented) but mounting a Remington of the same gauge is not. One has been documented and issued by the US, the other has not been. Be very careful, even mod's to the stocks can land you in legal trouble, and for an FFL holder, that's prison time. |
Tom_beatley
Ink's Still Wet on My License!
Username: Tom_beatley
Post Number: 7
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 2:00 pm: | |
I agree with Fuzzbean regarding 'original configuration'. Leastwise that's the way I read it.Also, have the rest of you noted that letters we get from BATF as of late claim that the only thing a C&R is good for is to buy curio and relic fire arms across state lines! Time to tread lightly. |
|