Armory Sponsor
Posted: 3/1/2010 3:57:48 PM EDT
|
In short, I know ATF Ruling 85-10 imposed an import law to the definition of a C&R firearm. Also, that the Federal C&R definition says nothing about original configuration.
Does anyone have anything else from the ATF or Federal law on the original configuration issue? I am researching this for a possible legal challange to this ruling, involving interstate trade. Based on the adoption of a law regarding the importation of foreign held military firearms to the interstate trade of US made and owned sporting and military firearms. Any additional info/research would be helpful. Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
In short, I know ATF Ruling 85-10 imposed an import law to the definition of a C&R firearm. Also, that the Federal C&R definition says nothing about original configuration. Does anyone have anything else from the ATF or Federal law on the original configuration issue? I am researching this for a possible legal challange to this ruling, involving interstate trade. Based on the adoption of a law regarding the importation of foreign held military firearms to the interstate trade of US made and owned sporting and military firearms. Any additional info/research would be helpful. Thanks. May I ask exactly what it is you intend on challenging? What you say here is full of holes and a few errors on your part as to exactly what 85-10 is and isn't and what it applies to. To have any discussion on this you need to be much clearer as to what it is you want to do and why. I think the main problem I sense here, without knowing more, is you underestimate the authority congress gives BATF in making and enforcing regulations. How much money do you have for this challenge? Dutch |
|
The problem I am seeing is that C&R FFL holders are denied certain use of their license in interstate trade because for example, a stock was updated on a C&R weapon therefore changing original configuration. By contrast, for example if you put a new pair of Williams Firesights on it or an Ultimak scope mount is still C&R. The ATF also recently ruled that a batch of imported TT33 pistols was still C&R even though a non original safety switch was added by drilling a hole in the serial numbered frame. How was that not a major modification? For that matter what is major modification? Where is that defined in any law on C&R firearms?
Also for example, if I wanted to cut a 24" barrel of a 50year old Winchester 30-06 bolt action sporting arm to 20" per the ATF that is a major modification and the weapon is no longer C&R. Therefore I can not later sell that firearm to another C&R FFL holder in interstate trade. There is no clear line as to what updates change original config and which do not. The ATF has been able to pick and chose based on their application of a foreign trade import law to interstate trade. Other than the import law again dealing with foreign trade, there is no law which defines C&R that says anything about original config. None. Specially dealing with US made and held sporting arms. I understand the ATF has powers granted to them by congress to impose policy. However, these policies have to be based on law. Law that applies to the actual issue being reviewed for policy action. At this point I am gathering info, law, ATF letters, and opinions. If there is supporting information I plan on taking this matter up with the ATF FTB. |
|
Quoted:
The problem I am seeing is that C&R FFL holders are denied certain use of their license in interstate trade because for example, a stock was updated on a C&R weapon therefore changing original configuration. By contrast, for example if you put a new pair of Williams Firesights on it or an Ultimak scope mount is still C&R. The ATF also recently ruled that a batch of imported TT33 pistols was still C&R even though a non original safety switch was added by drilling a hole in the serial numbered frame. How was that not a major modification? For that matter what is major modification? Where is that defined in any law on C&R firearms? Also for example, if I wanted to cut a 24" barrel of a 50year old Winchester 30-06 bolt action sporting arm to 20" per the ATF that is a major modification and the weapon is no longer C&R. Therefore I can not later sell that firearm to another C&R FFL holder in interstate trade. There is no clear line as to what updates change original config and which do not. The ATF has been able to pick and chose based on their application of a foreign trade import law to interstate trade. Other than the import law again dealing with foreign trade, there is no law which defines C&R that says anything about original config. None. Specially dealing with US made and held sporting arms. I understand the ATF has powers granted to them by congress to impose policy. However, these policies have to be based on law. Law that applies to the actual issue being reviewed for policy action. At this point I am gathering info, law, ATF letters, and opinions. If there is supporting information I plan on taking this matter up with the ATF FTB. This isn't meant to be argumentative.... I suppose you've read Senator Bob Dole's comments concerning "congressional intent"? If you haven't then you need to as it is very specific as to the scope of what "curio" and "relic" means and why military surplus firearms must be in original configuration to be classified as c-r by BATF. They have no collectibility when modified outside they're military dress. You are mistaken if you think 85-10 deals with anything other than military surplus firearms. Ruling 85-10 is strictly about military surplus firearms having to be in original configuration to be classed as "curio-relic". There is no distinction in 85-10 or GCA68 between foreign made guns and American made guns or any kind of obtuse definition you can think of foreign versus American. Its about guns. Not American guns and not foreign guns. And its not about foreign trade or any type. There have been COUNTLESS newbies argue that because a particular rifle had a stock changed from what it had when it was originally manufactured in some retrofit. But most all these arguments are about firearms that were still in military usage and therefore still fall under the "original" meaning of "original". You can argue about that all you want but you'll get nowhere fast. This import law and "foreign trade".... I'm not getting why you're using the term, "foreign trade" here. I think this is part of the problem. You're hung up on something having to do with "foreign trade". When military surplus firearms are imported they don't belong to some foreign country. And most haven't belonged to a foreign gov't for some time. They belong to an importer or wholesaler like Century Arms. Where they came from has no bearing on them being in the U.S. nor their classification as curio-relic firearms. There's no difference between a K98k imported from Russia and a 1903 Springfield sold by the DCM in 1956 to Joe Blow from Kokomo for $22. No difference at all. They are both curio-relic firearms in terms of their status when purchased or sold by 03FFL licensees. As to being denied the use of the 03FFL... That it patently untrue. You, as a 03FFL, are bound by law and regulation as administered by BATF. You don't have the freedom to suggest you're being denied use of your license when the use you want falls outside the permissible use of the license. This seems to be the crux of your complaint. You don't like the constraints put upon the 03FFL. You seem to suggest there's some loophole in the regulatory process that negates BATF making regulations. The fact of the matter is there is nothing keeping you from doing what you want and using the services of a 01FFL to transfer in interstate commerce transactions with any non-NFA firearm in any configuration. This is what a 01FFL license is charged with doing by law. This is NOT what an 03FFL has the privilege of doing under the law. The 03FFL is confined by regulation to a fairly narrow set of circumstances for transferring firearms in interstate commerce. I understand the ATF has powers granted to them by congress to impose policy. However, these policies have to be based on law. Law that applies to the actual issue being reviewed for policy action. Where you say, "these policies have to be based on law." and "law that applies to the actual issue being reviewed for policy action." These two statements show that you are way off course with this whole notion. I'll tell you what's going to happen. You'll write BATF with your list of issues and you'll get a nice letter back from BATF that'll basically be BATF flipping you the finger, but in a nice way. That will be the end of the issue. Period. The Tokarev safety installation was a simple situation. Either they got the safety or they didn't come in. It really was that simple. Now YOU decide. Do they come in and get the safety or do they get ground up in a gun crusher in Romania? Technically BATF bent the rules to accommodate the Tokarevs. They've done it before in other situations of a similar sort. When Swedish Mauser carbines were imported pre-68 they had barrel lengths under 18". The importer was required to install an extension to make the barrels 18". BATF could've said no. They're under 18" so they don't come in. That's what the law says. You want to throw issues like that in BATF's face just to make your point? Get real. This isn't a perfect world. The law isn't perfect. The administration of the law isn't perfect. Learn to live with it or cut up your 03FFL and send it back because no matter what you say, no matter how you organize your argument, you'll get nowhere with this. No where fast. I've heard all of what you're complaining about before. I was first licensed 03FFL in the early 80s. I held the license over 20 years. I've had 40 years experience in the U.S. milsurp firearm scene. I'm familiar with far more of the angles here in what you're talking about than you are. You're on a dead end street. I wish I could say your argument has merit but it doesn't. BATF regulations do not have to be based on law, as you put it. Congress gave BATF authority to write the regulations. BATF doesn't have to ask your permission or your opinion before these regulations are published into law. They don't have to be reviewed by anyone before they're published into law. With 85-10 BATF just got a little lazy and used a definition for import and applied it to how they would view domestic classification of curio-relic firearms. I've never seen a problem with how they did this. It was plain as day when I first read it that they were lifting a few paragraphs out of the import regulations for military surplus firearms and setting it down as a parameter for 03FFL issues, that the intrinsic value of a military firearm in the collector's field was based on it's configuration as a military firearm and not as it's utility as an ordinary firearm for sporting use. The intent and value of a curio-relic is NOT as a firearm but as an object of history. If you really read the law and "congressional intent" you see all this plain as day. Take my ardent and friendly advise: find another windmill to tilt at.... this one isn't going to bring you joy. Dutch |
|
I appreciate your comments and sharing your experience. You have given me some extra encouragement. You have brought up some of the key points I am trying to figure out and address.
First you state “Technically BATF bent the rules to accommodate the Tokarevs” then “With 85-10 BATF just got a little lazy”.- That is the exact type of flip flop, it works this time, inconsistency that I have a problem with. Those TT33 were already imported with the safety when they came over. As you stated, people could have bought them through 01 dealers. I have a copy of the the email AIM used to get the TT33 cleared as C&R. If you remember correctly AIM and the others were already listing them as 01 pistols when they first started selling them. There is no set method that the ATF uses to decide what is C&R. If they don't like what you are trying to do for whatever reason, they impose an opinion based on what? I agree that military arms have their C&R “value” in their original configuration. However, why then are you allowed to put modern sights, scope mounts, safety switches on them and still retain C&R status? Shouldn't they remain in original configuration to be C&R? Whats the logic there? If the application of the import law applies to military firearms, which it is stated in the law, how can the ATF apply this law to US made sporting arms? They made the C&R import issue as a general blanket application to all firearms. You state “The law isn't perfect. The administration of the law isn't perfect. Learn to live with it or cut up your 03FFL and send it back because no matter what you say, no matter how you organize your argument, you'll get nowhere with this. No where fast.” and “this one isn't going to bring you joy”- If people simply learned to live with what government does, specially when they are wrong, where would freedom be then? I can appreciate you trying to save my time but I feel the ATF has applied the import law improperly, specially to US made sporting arms. The “joy” in this is come from questioning the law not from some self fulling quest. |
|
Quoted:
The receiver is the firearm. As long as the receiver is unmodified, it is a C&R if it is 50+ years old or specifically declared a C&R. It doesn't matter what barrel, stock or curb feelers you put on it, the receiver the is the C&R. Incorrect, I suggest you give this a read. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios-relics.html The definition for curio or relic (“C & R”) firearms found in 27 CFR § 478.11 does not specifically state that a firearm must be in its original condition to be classified as a C&R firearm. However, ATF Ruling 85-10, which discusses the importation of military C&R firearms, notes that they must be in original configuration and adds that a receiver is not a C&R item. Combining this ruling and the definition of C&R firearms, the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has concluded that a firearm must be in its original condition to be considered a C&R weapon.
It is also the opinion of FTB, however, that a minor change such as the addition of scope mounts, non-original sights, or sling swivels would not remove a firearm from its original condition. Moreover, we have determined that replacing particular firearms parts with new parts that are made to the original design would also be acceptable—for example, replacing a cracked M1 Grand stock with a new wooden stock of the same design, but replacing the original firearm stock with a plastic stock would change its classification as a C&R item. |
|
Quoted:
In practical terms, you can ship any firearm that is 50 years or older as a C&R. You can Tapco fuck a Mosin with a poly stock and a fake handle and it will still ship as a C&R. These regs may mean something to importers and wholesalers but nothing to you and me. So, during an audit do you think the ATF would be OK with this being logged in as a C&R if it was purchased by me in this configuration. SMLE 2A1 cut down to 18" threaded with a FAL flash hider/brake, XS scout mount. 
FWIW: I sold this and it was never logged in. |
|
I think kingston_fisher posted a perfect example,of a C&R that would no longer be classified a C&R by the BATFE
I don't think that rifle retains its "collector value" in the configuration it is now in. Remember The FFL 03 is for the collecting of curio's and relic's. As much as I hate to admit it the BATFE, has been pretty good about declaring some guns as C&R. The CZ 82 well under 50 years old, many of the SKS's and the Ishapore 2A/2A1 also come to mind.They haven't been too bad about that original configuration thing also as previously noted. Imagine the hell we could go threw with Finnish rifles if they held fast to the "original configuration" instead of the intent of the law creating the FFL03. |
|
Quoted:
Once the receiver is 50 years, it is a C&R. If it is a C&R by virtue of ATF ruling and not because it is 50 years old, then you can't change it. But once the receiver hits 50 it is a C&R. This big discussion is about C&Rs that are not 50 years old. Not the case. The rifle that was in question was a US made sporting arm made over 50yrs ago. ATF said I could not change the barrel length to keep C&R status due to ATF ruling 85-10. |
|
Quoted:
The receiver is the firearm. As long as the receiver is unmodified, it is a C&R if it is 50+ years old or specifically declared a C&R. It doesn't matter what barrel, stock or curb feelers you put on it, the receiver the is the C&R. Uhhh no. While it doesn't make sense the ATF has been VERY consistent on that issue. |
|
Quit thinking amount of change and think "would a collector still want it".
Put a scope mount on it and if it is removed the gun will still look like original? Not major mod and still C&R. Cut the stock off a little so your regular collector will turn his nose up at the "sporterized gun"? Is a major mod and no longer C&R regardless of DOM. Put the above back into an original stock? Back to being a C&R. |
|
Quoted:
So, during an audit do you think the ATF would be OK with this being logged in as a C&R if it was purchased by me in this configuration. There's a huge difference between a compliance person and an enforcement person. The difference is the enforcement person can kill you and your dog and get away with it. Compliance inspectors are often borrowed from the alcohol and tobacco side of things. They often are quite ignorant on firearms issues. They are there to look at your book. They've been instructed in how to inspect your book. Most probably couldn't tell you anything about curio-relic firearms other than they're old and greasy and smell bad. This pictured Indian Enfield is not a curio-relic in the pictured configuration. If it was logged in as such it was done so ignorantly or mistakenly. There are many 03FFL who are routinely violating GCA68 in not only technicalities but violating it in the very spirit it was intended by congress. One day it's going to catch up with you who do this. If you think its no big deal think about Randy Weaver's couple inches of shotgun barrel. Think about Kenneth Ballew.... In June of 1971, four BATF officers burst into the home of Ken Ballew. A whole lot of you boys weren't even born yet in 1971. The only things that have kept BATF at bay are the ghosts of Waco and Ruby Ridge. http://www.cleanupatf.org/ http://cleanupatf.org/forums/index.php?/forum/3-discussion/ This is the reason that ATF ends up being embarrassed because ATF does not know the difference between law abiding citizens and criminal intent.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The receiver is the firearm. As long as the receiver is unmodified, it is a C&R if it is 50+ years old or specifically declared a C&R. It doesn't matter what barrel, stock or curb feelers you put on it, the receiver the is the C&R. Incorrect, I suggest you give this a read. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios-relics.html The definition for curio or relic (“C & R”) firearms found in 27 CFR § 478.11 does not specifically state that a firearm must be in its original condition to be classified as a C&R firearm. However, ATF Ruling 85-10, which discusses the importation of military C&R firearms, notes that they must be in original configuration and adds that a receiver is not a C&R item. Combining this ruling and the definition of C&R firearms, the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has concluded that a firearm must be in its original condition to be considered a C&R weapon.
It is also the opinion of FTB, however, that a minor change such as the addition of scope mounts, non-original sights, or sling swivels would not remove a firearm from its original condition. Moreover, we have determined that replacing particular firearms parts with new parts that are made to the original design would also be acceptable—for example, replacing a cracked M1 Grand stock with a new wooden stock of the same design, but replacing the original firearm stock with a plastic stock would change its classification as a C&R item. Please explain than the Mosin M39's all of which were once M91's or 91/30's and altered by the Finns with new wood, sights, barrels etc and are C&R eligible? How about the Finn Mosing target rifles that are C&R eligible (M76?) that have nothing original but the receiver? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The receiver is the firearm. As long as the receiver is unmodified, it is a C&R if it is 50+ years old or specifically declared a C&R. It doesn't matter what barrel, stock or curb feelers you put on it, the receiver the is the C&R. Incorrect, I suggest you give this a read. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios-relics.html The definition for curio or relic (“C & R”) firearms found in 27 CFR § 478.11 does not specifically state that a firearm must be in its original condition to be classified as a C&R firearm. However, ATF Ruling 85-10, which discusses the importation of military C&R firearms, notes that they must be in original configuration and adds that a receiver is not a C&R item. Combining this ruling and the definition of C&R firearms, the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) has concluded that a firearm must be in its original condition to be considered a C&R weapon.
It is also the opinion of FTB, however, that a minor change such as the addition of scope mounts, non-original sights, or sling swivels would not remove a firearm from its original condition. Moreover, we have determined that replacing particular firearms parts with new parts that are made to the original design would also be acceptable—for example, replacing a cracked M1 Grand stock with a new wooden stock of the same design, but replacing the original firearm stock with a plastic stock would change its classification as a C&R item. Please explain than the Mosin M39's all of which were once M91's or 91/30's and altered by the Finns with new wood, sights, barrels etc and are C&R eligible? How about the Finn Mosing target rifles that are C&R eligible (M76?) that have nothing original but the receiver? Are they collectible by military gun collectors? Is a Century Mosin with a plastic stock? |
|
The Finnish rifles gain most of their "collector value" because, of the alterations that the Finnish did to captured weapons. If the Finns had just reused captured weapons as the found them, instead of rebuilding them to their specifications they would not bring the premium that they do.
When Bubba gets a hold of a M91/30,cuts down the barrel,drills the receiver for a scope and does his handy work to the stock,it will lose it's "collector value". I do not think the argument that a hacked up gun is C&R eligible will go far. |
Armory Sponsor