Home | Registration | Become a Seller | Appraisals | Sell an Item | Help & Info
Search | Forum | Find a FFL | My Auctions | My Bids | Contact Us | Log In
| (Forum Home)--->(Seller Forum)--->(ARE SPORTERIZED C&R RIFLES C&R ELIGIBLE?) |
|
| (Start a Thread) (Forum Rules) |
| Seller: Bubba J(79-0-0) | Post#1 - Posted: 09/10/2009 at 20:50:57 |
|
Little Storping: From what I remember from a recent thread discussing this very sublect, I do not think that either example you list will qualify as a C&R, especially the second one. If I am incorrect in this someone will correct it. FR&G |
| Seller: jessmoon(104-0-0) | Post#2 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 05:27:35 |
|
Just brought up the thread discussion in gun talk forum under "Conversion still a curio and relic class?" Lots of good info in it about this subject. |
| Seller: Elitist(124-0-0) | Post#3 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 06:39:03 |
|
If the gun--any gun, without exception, including military actions--is over 50 years old, it qualifies as C&R, PERIOD. Read the law and the regulations. "Manufactured 50 years or more prior to the present date" is one of the criteria: if ANY of those criteria is met, it is C&R, PERIOD. All Springfield rifles are C&R, no matter what has been done to them, PERIOD, paranoid dealers and lying Jackbooted Thugs to the contrary notwithstanding. The "original condition" criteion applied to military rifles that were less than 50 years old. If the gun is 50+ years old, it is C&R eligible, PERIOD. Read the law, read the standards for C&R status. It's all there in black and white. |
| Thread Admin: Little Storping(34-0-0) | Post#4 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 12:52:36 |
| (no avatar) |
Hey folks. Thanks for everyone who has weighed in so far. Feel free to keep the discussion going. An experienced AA seller got back to me with this information. While ELITIST may have a point, it looks as though the ATF has made an exception per Ruling 85-10: |
| Seller: Elitist(124-0-0) | Post#5 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 13:51:13 |
|
|
To be C&R a firearm must meet ONLY ONE of the three criteria. "Over 50 years" is enough. The BATF's demand that also meet the "collectible interest" criterion is in direct contravention of the specific regulatory description of what constitutues a C&R gun. For a gun UNDER 50 years old, "original condition" and "collectible interest" apply but for ANYTHING 50+ years old, it is C&R, PERIOD. READ THE LAW AND THE REGULATION.
while the firearm may be 50+ years old, the fact they have been sporterized seems to make them "just another gun", removing their "C&R" status. This is YOUR interpretation, NOT the BATF's words. READ the definition in the context of this circular. Military arms that must meet the "collector's interest" criterion have to be in original configuration: those that are over 50 years old don't have to meet that criterion, and they are C&R REGARDLESS of condition or configuration, PERIOD. They can change this: it's regulation, not law: but so far they haven't. I expect in the future they will, but until they do, the wording in the law and CFR specifically and explicitly state that ANY firearm manufactured 50+ years ago is C&R, by definition. |
| Buyer: Kenden(111-0-0) | Post#6 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 14:28:30 |
| (no avatar) | I've brought this up before: what if the rifle was sporterized 50 years ago? Seems to me this makes it a C&R, even if not in original configuration. I'm thinking specifically of the Krags that were cut down after WWI in the 1920's. They are over 50 years old as they stand, and their value is in their collectability. This would be true for a lot of South American Mausers as well, and also the converted Mauser shotguns. |
| Seller: Petesguns(1085-0-0) | Post#7 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 17:53:43 |
|
This is a thorny issue as can be gathered from the replies to the post. Elitist is most likely correct, not only in his interpretation of the law but also in his evaluation of many of the BATFE's finest as jackbooted thugs. However, as a dealer who depends on his license to make a living, as do my employees, and also one who LIKES being free, and not wanting to attend a government owned Bed & Breakfast, I use the "regulation" put forth to me by the last agent I talked to, and that is that if not in original configuration, even if 50 or older, it is not a C&R. While this may make a C&R holder's life difficult, I would rather not take the chance just to make a few bucks and save a C&R holder some paperwork. Elitist may be right, but I doubt that I would see him fanning 100 dollar bills to pay my legal bills or bail me out if I ran afoul of an agent, even if he was making up his own rules. It is ALWAYS up to the accused to prove their innocence, even if blatantly wrongfully charged. Sorry, but it is my humble opinion. As with all things related to the BATFE, there is the LAW, and then there is the way the agents ENFORCE what they feel is the law. |
| Seller: Hartwell Gun(1138-1-2) | Post#8 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 18:11:19 |
|
Petes-it is written in "red ink" on the ATF website-under C&R firearms "Firearms automatically attain curio or relic (C&R) status when they are 50 years old. Any firearm that is at least 50 years old,******* and in its original configuration,******* would qualify as a C&R firearm. It is not necessary for such firearms to be listed in ATF’s C&R list. However, if your C&R item is regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and you desire removal from the provisions of the NFA, you must submit the firearm to the Firearms Technology Branch for evaluation and a formal classification. Don't see a gray area here-just plain English. |
| Thread Admin: Little Storping(34-0-0) | Post#9 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 19:02:29 |
| (no avatar) |
All laws are open to interpretation. Keep in mind, the court will expect that part of an interpretation is recognizing a law’s underlying rulings, as well as the original spirit of the law's intent. In this case, collecting. PETESGUNS perspective is prudent and we should all probably err on the side of caution. I don't think any of us will suffer legal consequences if we observe ATF Rul. 85-10, whereas the opposite may not be true. |
| Thread Admin: Little Storping(34-0-0) | Post#10 - Posted: 09/11/2009 at 19:25:59 |
| (no avatar) | JESSMOON, I was just able to take your advice and read the "Conversion still a curio" post in GUNTALK. It looks like you all have already debated this issue with the same results. Thanks for the heads up. In regards to JCG, sounds like the AA FORUMS lost a good resource and compatriot. - LS |