Do CMP purchases need to be logged in C+R book?

[jdubois]

Must enter into the A/D record all curios and relics acquired after receipt of the collector's license.

The question comes in when you ask if a gun that can be acquired as a curios and relic HAS to be acquired as a curios and relic. Look at the wording from the C&R list (top of section II):

"Such determination merely classifies the firearms as curios or relics and thereby authorizes licensed collectors to acquire, hold, or dispose of them as curios or relics subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44 and the regulations in 27 CFR Part 178. They are still "firearms" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44."

You see this wording "as curios and relics" scattered throughout 18 USC 44. Such as the definition of a collector, "The term 'collector' means any person who acquires, holds, or disposes of firearms as curios or relics". That wording clearly implies that you can also possess these guns not as curios and relics. Thus the previous answer from the ATF, "you only record guns acquired with your license," and the above statement from the ATF "all curios and relics must be recorded," are not in conflict.

 

[jdubois]

I just emailed the ATF with the question, "If I have a C&R FFL and I purchase an M1 Garand from the CMP, do I have to log the M1 into my bound book even though I did not acquire it using my C&R license?" Let's see what they say. I wonder if they'll even answer the question...

 

[Prepper]

I'm going to take a guess that they only need to be logged if using your C&R license was the only way you could legally get the gun. e.g. I go down to Four Seasons (same state) and buy an old M1... don't have to log. Or, I order through the mail from out of state and they can only ship it to me because it is a C&R purchase, then it has to be logged otherwise it is illegal (since how did I get it across state lines without using an FFL and without driving it across the border myself?).

But then, I am still not a lawyer.

 

[Pilgrim]

Thus the previous answer from the ATF, "you only record guns acquired with your license," and the above statement from the ATF "all curios and relics must be recorded," are not in conflict.

you sound like a politician

 

[jdubois]

you sound like a politician

Ouch, now that hurts

 

[jdubois]

I wonder if they'll even answer the question...

And the answer is... nope. They replied that they will only answer letters sent via snail mail.

Ok, what the heck, I'll send the written letter. I wanna make sure Pilgrim gets his due chance at being proven correct .

I wonder how many months it will take for a reply.

Ok, this is what I wrote them:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Office of Public Governmental Affairs
Mail Stop 5S-144
99 New York Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20226


Dear Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,

There seems to be some confusion surrounding the question of when it is necessary for a 03 FFL holder to log a Curio and Relic eligible firearm into their bound book. There are a few scenarios, in particular, that I would appreciate an opinion on.

First, one acquires a Curio and Relic eligible firearm from an 01 FFL dealer in one’s state of residence and does not present their 03 FFL certificate but instead goes through a NICS check exactly as they would for a non C&R eligible gun, and they do not intend to keep the firearm as part of their collection, but rather as a sporting firearm. Does that firearm need to be logged into the bound book?

Second, one does not need to use their 03 FFL to receive an M1 rifle through the Civilian Marksmanship Program; however that M1 is C&R eligible. Does that rifle need to be logged into the bound book if the 03 FFL was not used to obtain the rifle?

To sum up the questions above; do all C&R eligible firearms acquired by a 03 FFL holder need to be logged into the bound book, or only C&R eligible firearms that are acquired for their inherent collector value or acquired using the 03 FFL need to be logged?

Sincerely,


Jeremy DuBois

 

[vellnueve]

In the time it's taken to hash this out, you could have recorded it several hundred times.

 

[Pilgrim]

In the time it's taken to hash this out, you could have recorded it several hundred times.

yup.

I don't understand the humongous effort to argue about and try to get around what is very clearly written.

I thought that those who are trying to justify not logging (a 15 second process) might be above the tactics that the anti's have always tried to use concerning the wording of the 2A.

 

[jdubois]

I don't understand the humongous effort to argue about and try to get around what is very clearly written.

Right back at you. I only originally suggested that it could be argued one way or the other. You were the one who came in and with great feeling admonished me for saying that. The short sentence that I posted from the ATF is undeniable. But you have presented conflicting information, and the law itself doesn't specify.

I'm actually completely open to either interpretation, which is why I went to the trouble to write that letter in hopes of clarification. It seems you, on the other hand, have little interest in finding the truth, but instead are more interested in what you already believe. I suggest we wait until I get a reply from the ATF, and that will be the end of it.

 

[Prepper]

yup.

I don't understand the humongous effort to argue about and try to get around what is very clearly written.

I thought that those who are trying to justify not logging (a 15 second process) might be above the tactics that the anti's have always tried to use concerning the wording of the 2A.

I'm not trying to get around logging a gun. I initially wasn't sure whether I could get in trouble for logging a gun that isn't supposed to be logged. I'm happy to log it, or not log it... whatever best dots the T's and I's.

 

[Arioch]

JDubois, the letter you sent to the BATFE is a great start. But the thread brings up another touched upon but not clearly resolved issue. I will be submitting my paperwork for a C&R license today. I also acquired a couple of firearms that would clearly be considered C&Rs at the time in the 70s and 80s. I still own a couple of these, but until I read this thread, I had no intention of logging them into my bound book, as they were previous acquisitions acquired through an in-state FFL. My logic is that I couldn't possibly have acquired them for my C&R collection, as I wasn't licensed at the time, and so do not belong in the bound book, regardless of their status at the time of purchase.

 

[USMA-82]

When I bought my Czech Vz-52 a couple of years ago, the Massachusetts FFL absolutely would not accept purchase via my C&R. I did not have a copy of "The List" and he did not particularly care to confirm C&R status or not.

So I bought the rifle under the usual process. But when I got home, I certainly logged it in as a C&R firearm.

I don't see how future "intent" would make a difference - saying, for example, that you "intend" to change configuration into a sporting rifle. If it was C&R when you bought it, whether you "use" the C&R license or not, it should still be logged in.

If you own a C&R firearm prior to licensing, you do not need to log in this firearm, but you do need to "log it out" if you sell it. On the acquisition (left) side of the log, you could simply write " From personal collection - acquired prior to licensing" in the Seller block, and then fill out the disposition (right) side of the log as usual.

If you change configuration on a C&R firearm, I would think you would have to sign it out on the disposition side - to yourself. I'm just not sure on that one.

 

[jdubois]

I also acquired a couple of firearms that would clearly be considered C&Rs at the time in the 70s and 80s. I still own a couple of these, but until I read this thread, I had no intention of logging them into my bound book, as they were previous acquisitions acquired through an in-state FFL.

If the 'all C&R eligible guns must be logged no matter what' opinion is correct, then I don't see any way you could argue that these shouldn't all be immediately logged into your bound book as soon as you receive your license. However, if the 'only log C&R eligible guns that are part of your collection or acquired using your C&R license' opinion is correct, you wouldn't need to log them in unless you intended them to be part of your collection and/or wanted to sell them using your C&R license.

If it was C&R when you bought it, whether you "use" the C&R license or not, it should still be logged in.

Perhaps. We need to wait to see what the reply to my letter is to make such determinations.

 

[Pilgrim]

If the 'all C&R eligible guns must be logged no matter what' opinion is correct, then I don't see any way you could argue that these shouldn't all be immediately logged into your bound book as soon as you receive your license. However, if the 'only log C&R eligible guns that are part of your collection or acquired using your C&R license' opinion is correct, you wouldn't need to log them in unless you intended them to be part of your collection and/or wanted to sell them using your C&R license.



Perhaps. We need to wait to see what the reply to my letter is to make such determinations.

My paper work from ATF says you do not need lo log arms acquired previously to getting your license. You only need to log them OUT if/when you dispose of them.

The whole discussion above revolves around having a license and then acquiring a gun and whether to log it when you get it....and whether you can pick and choose to 'use your license' or not. The correct answer to that is no, you can't pick and choose, you are licensed and that's it. Right jdubois ?

 

[jdubois]

The correct answer to that is no, you can't pick and choose, you are licensed and that's it. Right jdubois ?

That's your interpretation, yes.

 

[vellnueve]

That's my interpretation as well. Even if I buy from a local store, and do a 4473, I log it anyway.

 

[jdubois]

And the winner is... Pilgrim! Now we have a definite answer to clear up the conflicting information the ATF has put out in the past. And, of course, now Pilgrim has something to gloat about

This is in regards to your letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) received on August 19, 2008.
In your letter, you presented two scenarios pertaining to the acquisition of curio and relic (C&R) firearms and the
recordkeeping requirements for such acquisitions. You asked whether or not a C&R license holder was required to enter
in their acquisition and disposition (A&D) records C&R firearms that were acquired without benefit of
use of their license in both scenarios.

To sum up your two questions, every licensed collector must enter all acquisition of C&R firearms into
their A&D records because the firearm is a curio or relic and will be part of their collection or
possession. This is required even if their Federal fierarms license was not used to acquire the
firearm (see 27 CFR 478.125(f) and 18 U.S.C 923(g)(2)). The regulations also require that the
licensee enter all the appropriate information whenever a C&R firearm is disposed.

Additional information regarding the acquisition and disposition of C&R firearms and your
responsibilities as a C&R firearms collector can be obtained in ATF Publication 5300.11 - Firearms Curios or Relics
List or on the Internet at: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/curios/intro.htm.

 

[jdubois]

I also acquired a couple of firearms that would clearly be considered C&Rs at the time in the 70s and 80s. I still own a couple of these, but until I read this thread, I had no intention of logging them into my bound book, as they were previous acquisitions acquired through an in-state FFL.

Now we can answer this question. The ATF says don't log them in until they are disposed of, and then only enter the information appropriate to the disposition. Which I interpret to mean you'd leave the acquisition parts blank, but fill out the rest.

 

[Pilgrim]

Gloat !!!!!?????

You think I would gloat ?

I would never GLOAT !!!!!!

Never would it even enter my mind to gloat.

Thanks for getting a definitive answer. I'm surprised it came back so soon.

 

[vellnueve]

Hey, I was the first one to say you had to log it. Why can't I gloat?

 

[Pilgrim]

Hey, I was the first one to say you had to log it. Why can't I gloat?

You weren't nearly as persistent or vocal as I, but if you want to use some of my leftover, unused gloat, feel free !

 

[jdubois]

You weren't nearly as persistent or vocal as I, but if you want to use some of my leftover, unused gloat, feel free !

Now boys, don't squabble. There's plenty of gloat to go around!

 

[vellnueve]

GLOAT