LenS and vellnueve, another round of questions

[Pilgrim]

I'm going to see if I can find an answer or get an answer from BATFE.

WHAT ARE CURIOS OR RELICS?

As set out in the regulations (27 CFR 178.11), curios or relics include 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 offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

1.) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;
2.) 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
3.) 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.


You have the BATF's answer right here. It's right from their documentation.

Why is it so hard to understand? I give up.

 

[Dick]

At the risk of confusing things further (or anew) . . .

What about gun models that were made both before and after the 50-yr ago date? I'm thinking of S&W revolvers, for example, many models of which were made both before and after 1957. Are the pre-'57 ones C&R while the post-'57 models of the same gun don't (yet) qualify? Or does the fact that the same model was made more recently prevent any of them from qualifying as C&R?

 

[drgrant]

At the risk of confusing things further (or anew) . . .

What about gun models that were made both before and after the 50-yr ago date? I'm thinking of S&W revolvers, for example, many models of which were made both before and after 1957. Are the pre-'57 ones C&R while the post-'57 models of the same gun don't (yet) qualify? Or does the fact that the same model was made more recently prevent any of them from qualifying as C&R?

IIRC it's manufacture date of the actual gun in question.

This is why some older Makarovs are C+R eligible but a whole bunch of
others (like the newer replicants) are not.... same is true for 1911s, BHPs,
etc, which there are a lot of old and new ones out there. Some can be
C+Red, some cannot.

-Mike

 

[vellnueve]

WHAT ARE CURIOS OR RELICS?

As set out in the regulations (27 CFR 178.11), curios or relics include 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 offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

1.) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;
2.) 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
3.) 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.


You have the BATF's answer right here. It's right from their documentation.

Why is it so hard to understand? I give up.

Because the words "must fall within" is an exclusive term, not an inclusive one. That means any firearms that do not meet those conditions CANNOT be C&Rs, but it does not necessarily mean that firearms that do fall under one of those categories are automatically C&Rs. It'd be better to take a look at the actual wording of the regulations instead of the FAQ.

 

[drgrant]

Because the words "must fall within" is an exclusive term, not an inclusive one. That means any firearms that do not meet those conditions CANNOT be C&Rs, but it does not necessarily mean that firearms that do fall under one of those categories are automatically C&Rs. It'd be better to take a look at the actual wording of the regulations instead of the FAQ.

How about providing an example of something that meets one of the criteria above that is NOT a C+R? (eg,
something backed up by a letter from ATF tech branch saying this or that gun is not C+R ). And no,
antiques and other -really- old guns don't count, because they're federally unregulated, so C+R status
is irrelevant.


-Mike

 

[Neptune Cat]

With all due respect. Before giving up, you should tell vellnueve (and I) why his explanation is wrong.
Vellnueve's understanding of language is 100% correct in this instance (I verified this with a coworkers wife who speaks three laguages fluently and knows the english language inside and out and she's british, if that helps). I personally am not very good with language, which is why I asked.

She also mentioned that it's very easy to understand!

You may be correct about the intent. But even if you are, it's worded wrong.

WHAT ARE CURIOS OR RELICS?

As set out in the regulations (27 CFR 178.11), curios or relics include 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 offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

1.) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;
2.) 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
3.) 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.


You have the BATF's answer right here. It's right from their documentation.

Why is it so hard to understand? I give up.

 

[Pilgrim]

Why do you insist on making things more complicated than they are?

Do you have a C&R? Have you looked at the info they provided you?

If you have and did, then you'll know there are no exceptions or a list of exceptions in the approx 4 pounds of info they sent you.

With all due respect to you both, you sound like trolls.

I really give up.

No more will be said by me on this subject.

 

[Neptune Cat]

Why do you insist on making things more complicated than they are?

Do you have a C&R? Have you looked at the info they provided you?

If you have and did, then you'll know there are no exceptions or a list of exceptions in the approx 4 pounds of info they sent you.

With all due respect to you both, you sound like trolls.

I really give up.

No more will be said by me on this subject.

Seem to me that antiques are in fact an exception!!!!

 

[drgrant]

With all due respect. Before giving up, you should tell vellnueve (and I) why his explanation is wrong.
Vellnueve's understanding of language is 100% correct in this instance (I verified this with a coworkers wife who speaks three laguages fluently and knows the english language inside and out and she's british, if that helps). I personally am not very good with language, which is why I asked.

Well, I can kind of see what he is getting at.... as in that BATFE has left
the door open to exclude things, especially in the earlier part of the
law- the whole business about sporting or defensive/offensive
weapons, etc.

Also remember, however, that BATFE basically does whatever it wants
to, because most federal gun law is so poorly written (don't get me started
on the whole "sporting purposes" business!) and considerable latitude has
been granted to BATFE in how they actually enforce it. After all, This is
the same organization that considers a shoestring a machinegun....
and they basically get away with it because they have final
authority. (unless someone wants to wield a really ugly and expensive
court battle. )

I guess I'm just skeptical because in the absence of any specific prohibitions,
basically the regs set out in 27 CFR 178.11 is pretty clear about what
generally constitutes a C+R firearm.

I can imagine that they might pull a "such and such a thing is not a
C+R" but I would guess that the ATF cares very little about putting the
hammer down on Type 03's because a Type 03 is pretty limited
anyways.... and I doubt any "problems" with 03 licenses even show up
on the radar, statistically speaking. When's the last time you heard of
a gangbanger who bought a gun from a C+R dealer? I just think
that BATFE has little incentive to get onery over C+R status.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Seem to me that antiques are in fact an exception!!!!

They're not an exception; they're simply not regulated. Antiques are not
Title I, Title II, or any kind of "firearm" by federal definition. As far
as the feds are concerned an antique might as well be a paintball gun- it is
something that does not require an FFL to move in interstate commerce.

-Mike

 

[Neptune Cat]

drgrant

I agree that what you say is most likely the case. As a matter o' fact I would bet money on it.

However, I would not bet my license on it.

I will keep choosing from the list until I have in writing from the BATFE that the original language does not represent the intent.

 

[Neptune Cat]

They're not an exception; they're simply not regulated. Antiques are not
Title I, Title II, or any kind of "firearm" by federal definition. As far
as the feds are concerned an antique might as well be a paintball gun- it is
something that does not require an FFL to move in interstate commerce.

-Mike

I'm guessing then, that one doesn't have to keep C&R records of antiques. That does make them an exception to the rule. They are, afterall, still firearms. Aren't they?

 

[depicts]

Funny thing, I went to a different dealer today and bought a pre-34 22/32 Kit gun made around 1953 or 1954.

We did it as a C&R transaction, and he had no problem with that. He said, it's over 50 years old, it's C&R.

AN FA-10 was done, we exchanged copies of licenses, he logged it out of his book, and I into mine.

Much better way to buy than my last experience.

By serial number you can come close to knowing the date of manufacture. Like right now many of us are waiting for some Model 37s, Chiefs specials, to become C&R. Model numbers began in 1957.

 

[drgrant]

I'm guessing then, that one doesn't have to keep C&R records of antiques. That does make them an exception to the rule. They are, afterall, still firearms. Aren't they?

No, not what the feds consider a "firearm" within the concept of
federal regulation. (GCA68). Saying that an antique is somehow or
another an exception to C+R status is like saying that your dishwasher is
an exception. Even prohibited persons can own antiques and other
really old stuff... and the reason for this is because for GCA68 purposes,
antiques are not regulated entities. There is no bound book requirement
for ANY FFL for antiques, or for airguns, for that matter.

Edit: Course, basically we're arguing minutae at this point, but part of the
reason this got where it is is because of semantics. I guess my point
is that "antiques" are not really a viable "exception" within the context of
what vell was talking about before... because they're not regulated to
begin with. A -good- example of a real exception would be, say, like, if
BATFE declared -all- Thompson submachineguns as C+R exempt because
they decided that even old thompsons were being used primarily as offensive or
defensive firearms and didn't really fit their idea of a curio/relic. Obviously
that example isn't true, but it's more in line of what I would consider to be
an "exception" if one existed.

-Mike

 

[vellnueve]

I was thinking more along the lines of rifles like L1A1s which I could easily see being rendered as not C&Rs even though they are or will soon be over 50 years old. Of course, they'll never get imported here and I'm sure they've mostly/all been destroyed but theoretically if we could import some they would be C&R EBRs.

 

[Neptune Cat]

No, not what the feds consider a "firearm" within the concept of
federal regulation. (GCA68). Saying that an antique is somehow or
another an exception to C+R status is like saying that your dishwasher is
an exception. Even prohibited persons can own antiques and other
really old stuff... and the reason for this is because for GCA68 purposes,
antiques are not regulated entities. There is no bound book requirement
for ANY FFL for antiques, or for airguns, for that matter.

Edit: Course, basically we're arguing minutae at this point, but part of the
reason this got where it is is because of semantics. I guess my point
is that "antiques" are not really a viable "exception" within the context of
what vell was talking about before... because they're not regulated to
begin with. A -good- example of a real exception would be, say, like, if
BATFE declared -all- Thompson submachineguns as C+R exempt because
they decided that even old thompsons were being used primarily as offensive or
defensive firearms and didn't really fit their idea of a curio/relic. Obviously
that example isn't true, but it's more in line of what I would consider to be
an "exception" if one existed.

-Mike

Both points are understood. I didn't realize that an antique firearm is not defined as being a firearm. I will check this out in more depth, but I know that you know what you are talking about.

What concernes me is the language used.

In 20 years or so the AR15 you bought in the early 80's is going to become a C&R firearm. I find that hard to believe. What worries me most is that they don't even need to change the language. When they come to look at your bound book they may leave with your license.

Of course I'm assuming that the laws and regs won't change drastically in the next 20 years.

 

[Dick]

Funny thing, I went to a different dealer today and bought a pre-34 22/32 Kit gun made around 1953 or 1954.

We did it as a C&R transaction, and he had no problem with that. He said, it's over 50 years old, it's C&R.

I'm a relatively new C&R FFL holder and I'm trying to make sure I understand, so another question:

You didn't say if the M34 was in MA prior to the magic date, but for the purposes of my question, let's assume it wasn't. In that case, the ONLY way the dealer can make the transaction is as a C&R, right - in other words, the '98 date has no significance for C&R guns? The reason I'm asking is that there are lots of interesting relatively modern handguns on the internet that would qualify as C&R under the 50-yr rule and they usually list enough of the serial number to check if that's the case. If it is, a knowledgeable FFL (and it sounds like you found one - care to share the name?) can accept delivery and transfer the gun. Is all that correct? TIA

 

[drgrant]

Both points are understood. I didn't realize that an antique firearm is not defined as being a firearm. I will check this out in more depth, but I know that you know what you are talking about.

IIRC when the POS known as GCA68 came out of the rectum of
our legislative system, there was a line in the sand drawn... and IIRC
"antiques" are below that line. I think the notional back then was
that crimes were rarely, if ever, committed with such guns, so it is pointless
to even attempt regulating them.

In 20 years or so the AR15 you bought in the early 80's is going to become a C&R firearm. I find that hard to believe.

Why is that so hard to believe? (well, assuming they don't BAN civilian ownership of them entirely by then!) Other "military-type firearms" have a C+R status, such as an M1 Garand, any/most M1 Carbines, or even a Browning BAR machinegun! (IIRC you still have to pay the tax, but C+R's can still transfer them. ) Some S+W 76 submachineguns are also C+R elegible, perhaps all of them, actually, if they were produced over 50 years ago. There are numerous other fully automatic and semiautomatic military type firearms which are C+R eligible.

-Mike

 

[Neptune Cat]

IIRC when the POS known as GCA68 came out of the rectum of
our legislative system, there was a line in the sand drawn... and IIRC
"antiques" are below that line. I think the notional back then was
that crimes were rarely, if ever, committed with such guns, so it is pointless
to even attempt regulating them.



Why is that so hard to believe? (well, assuming they don't BAN civilian ownership of them entirely by then!) Other "military-type firearms" have a C+R status, such as an M1 Garand, any/most M1 Carbines, or even a Browning BAR machinegun! (IIRC you still have to pay the tax, but C+R's can still transfer them. ) Some S+W 76 submachineguns are also C+R elegible, perhaps all of them, actually, if they were produced over 50 years ago. There are numerous other fully automatic and semiautomatic military type firearms which are C+R eligible.

-Mike

Again, I agree with what you are saying but, those other military guns have wood funiture. There are a whole bunch of people who seem to be trying to make laws agianst black rifles. I would hope these people come to thier senses and I like to think that our logic is wearing off on them.

Now that I think about it there are already black guns that are C&R eligible, aren't there. Therefore I am going to agree with all your points.

The language is still wrong, although the intent may be pure. Thank you for showing me the light.

 

[drgrant]

I was thinking more along the lines of rifles like L1A1s which I could easily see being rendered as not C&Rs even though they are or will soon be over 50 years old. Of course, they'll never get imported here and I'm sure they've mostly/all been destroyed but theoretically if we could import some they would be C&R EBRs

How would an L1A1 any different than, perhaps, say a Thompson, or an
M1919 which has C+R status? (via age) Things which are considered
"machineguns" or other NFA devices (say, like an ithaca auto burglar SBS) can
be C+R, although you still have the dollop of NFA tax stuff to deal with
it on top, but it does remove a step if you are a collector. Look at
some MG ads sometimes... there is a reason some guns list as C+R
transferable like the S+W M76. It is because the status can sometimes
reduce the overall cost of the transfer.

I agree that it is unlikely an L1A1 would ever be imported, but that is, IMO,
a different issue from just purely C+R status. If perhaps, there were L1A1s
that were imported legally that were 50+ years old, they would indeed be
eligible- the same way an SKS or an old Mosin is eligible.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Again, I agree with what you are saying but, those other military guns have wood funiture. There are a whole bunch of people who seem to be trying to make laws agianst black rifles. I would hope these people come to thier senses and I like to think that our logic is wearing off on them.

I guess I am saying that as long as C+Rs are legal, those guns will fit under
the license when the time comes. Hell, the Thompson was virtually the
gun that spurned the existence of the NFA, and older ones are still C+R, so
at least historically, the "evil-ness" of the gun has little to do with it. I
agree that could change at any moment though, but that is true of ANY gun
reg governed by the ATF, not just C+R stuff. They could come out tomorrow
and say that M1 Garands are machineguns because they are too easy to modify for
full auto or some crap, and get away with it. The end deal is we can either
enjoy (what we're allowed to, which is pretty clearly defined most of the time) or live
in paranoid fear of what the ATF "might" do tomorrow.


-Mike

 

[depicts]

I'm a relatively new C&R FFL holder and I'm trying to make sure I understand, so another question:

You didn't say if the M34 was in MA prior to the magic date, but for the purposes of my question, let's assume it wasn't. In that case, the ONLY way the dealer can make the transaction is as a C&R, right - in other words, the '98 date has no significance for C&R guns? The reason I'm asking is that there are lots of interesting relatively modern handguns on the internet that would qualify as C&R under the 50-yr rule and they usually list enough of the serial number to check if that's the case. If it is, a knowledgeable FFL (and it sounds like you found one - care to share the name?) can accept delivery and transfer the gun. Is all that correct? TIA

DICK,I've run into this twice now. Both times I used my C&R and bought 50+ year old firearms.

Funny thing is, yesterday when I bought the 22/32 Kit Gun, while the dealer sold it to me as a C&R, he told me that I still needed a LTC in Massachusetts to buy/possess a pistol. We didn't do any formal check of my LTC, the dealer has known me 30 years and knows I have a LTC, we shoot together once in awhile.

I found it sort of funny though, because I know I can mail away for Nagant revolvers for instance, or walk in a couple of gun shops I know and purchase the occasional C&R without showing a Massachusetts LTC.

Maybe the problem comes up when you file the FA10 which is required (and went out this morning). If you file the form without listing a LTC or FID card, I'm sure it would bounce back and be checked on eventually.

Like you, I'm learning too DICK, and have to lean on guys with more experience than me to interpret the rules and make sure I'm doing things the right way.

BTW, my Kit Gun was manufactured in 1954, so it IS over 50 years old. It was put on consignment with a Great Gun Dealer from a woman who's husband had died 15 years ago, and she just released 11 of his guns for sale. All of them were in Mass by at least 1992 when he died, and have been in the attic since.

I have made purchases like this at places like Mansfield, North Attleboro and Middleboro. There seems to be a lot of shops that know the law. I'd rather not be more specific.

 

[vellnueve]

drgrant -

An L1A1 would not fall under the NFA device label as it is semi-auto only. However, it is also an EBR, and BATFE does not like EBRs.

 

[drgrant]

drgrant -

An L1A1 would not fall under the NFA device label as it is semi-auto only.

I'm not up on FALs, so I wasn't sure... Regardless, it really doesn't
matter. My point was that -anything- which fits within the
criteria can have C+R status, even a legally imported machinegun from a
foreign country.

However, it is also an EBR, and BATFE does not like EBRs.

I still don't see any evidence of this WRT classification of C+R status of
various guns. I know the ATF is pretty assholic/douchebaggian about
a lot of things but C+R classification doesn't seem to be one of
them. (yet). As more magazine fed rifles become C+R eligible we'll just
have to wait and see if the posture changes. I just don't see any
additional restrictions coming up against C+R holders in this regard, it
doesn't make any sense. C+R holders by and large are regulated more
than "joe guy buyer" is, so adding more restrictions is pointless.

(Edit: on the contrary, I am surprised that Type 03s don't cover -every-
conventional firearm.... as it would give the feds the ability to "control"
more gun owners, especially those with large numbers of firearms. Whenever
the Type 03 was invented, the limitations must have been written in the law at
the time. )


Further, even if they changed their opinion on a given C+R piece, it is
hardly worth worrying about. Even if a given gun was "C+R delisted"
they could basically only mandate that the particular gun no longer move
in "interstate commerce" via Type 03 licensees. As far as I know
there are no guns which are "illegal to possess" without a Type 03, since
C+R's don't have oddball status like an FFL that is paying the SOT,etc.

FWIW I think the ATF "doesn't like" a lot of things but if there is no
law to prohibit their existence, there is very little they can do. They can
only stretch and abuse the poorly written laws so much.

Course, then there are things which transcend the ATF, like if we end
up with a bad president who signs more "executive orders" like the 1989
import ban. Yeah, the ATF is bad, but we can't lose sight of the
fact that such regulatory abuse is enabled by politicians giving them the
powers to begin with. Agencies have little power without a delegation of
authority (and money) from congress.

-Mike