PDA

View Full Version : Question About C&R


whtnite
06-06-2011, 5:37 PM
A fellow calgunner stated that a 1917 enfield sporter dated 11/18 did not qualify as a C&R because it was modified from its original configuration.. I can't find any DOJ documentation that says that.. I found that it has to be at least 50 years old. That it has to have historical value or is novel, rare, bizarre or unusual. As a collector of early military sporters, 03's and 03a3's purchased as C&R's I think it qualifies. I haven't seen many compared to the 03's. Any opinions??
Thanks.
whtnite

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=441672

Experimentalist
06-06-2011, 5:43 PM
This is true.

You may not use a C&R license to purchase a gun that otherwise would qualify as a C&R if it has been altered from its original configuration.

I believe period-correct changes are acceptable. The addition of a correct scope and mount, for example. However, things like changing the stock to a modern item remove the weapon from C&R eligibility.

(edit): I just checked the link. I have my C&R license, and there is no way I'd try to buy that rifle using it.

whtnite
06-06-2011, 5:55 PM
Thanks for the info, I was wondering about the stock, If it was back in the original stock it may have worked out without scope and rings..
whtnite

Anchors
06-06-2011, 5:59 PM
I was under the impression that non-permanent changes (such as throwing a Yugo SKS in a sporter stock) do NOT remove the C&R status.

If you can return something to original configuration, I thought it was still eligible?

(though I don't personally like sporterized C&R rifles. I have a C&R license).

emcon5
06-06-2011, 6:02 PM
"original configuration" does not appear in the law.


(2) Subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072 shall not apply to the infrequent sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm that is not a handgun, which is a curio or relic manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or its successor.

The referenced Code of Federal Regulations:

Curios or relics. 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:

(a) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof;

(b) 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

(c) 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.

The ATF pulled the "Original Configuration" thing out of their arse by globally applying requirements outlined "ATF Ruling 85-10" which dealt with importing surplus firearms to all C&Rs. Text can be found here: http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-85-10.pdf

I would love to see this get challenged. The listed requirements are not "and" they are "or".

It makes perfect sense to me for a C&R on the list which is not 50 years old to lose C&R status if modified, for example a Ishapore Enfield made in the 1970s.

But a rifle made in 1918 is and always shall be "manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date" and for them to claim it no longer applies because you change the stock is idiotic.

paul0660
06-06-2011, 6:04 PM
Q: What modifications can be made on C&R firearms without changing their C&R classification?

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.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios-relics.html#modifications

I have also read another opinion that says a sporter stock is ok.

cdtx2001
06-06-2011, 6:52 PM
This is true.

You may not use a C&R license to purchase a gun that otherwise would qualify as a C&R if it has been altered from its original configuration.

I believe period-correct changes are acceptable. The addition of a correct scope and mount, for example. However, things like changing the stock to a modern item remove the weapon from C&R eligibility.

(edit): I just checked the link. I have my C&R license, and there is no way I'd try to buy that rifle using it.


Where does it say all that? Over 50 years old is over 50 years old.

emcon5
06-06-2011, 6:54 PM
The other question is, does what ATF considers is or is not a C&R really matter for a face to face transfer between California residents?

The California Penal Code I cited above says "as defined in Section 478.11 of Title27 of the Code of Federal Regulations"

It does not say "as defined by ATF Ruling 85-10"

Does ATF care what happens between 2 residents of the same state, when there is no federal law prohibiting the sale of a modified but still 93 year old rifle between 2 individuals who are not prohibited by GCA68?

The state law, and what it references in the federal law, cited above, does not say you can't sell it face to face.

devilinblack
06-06-2011, 6:55 PM
Where does it say all that? Over 50 years old is over 50 years old.

This. If it's over 50 it doesn't matter if it's sporterized or not for the person to person transfer exemption if that's what you're looking at.

vincewarde
06-06-2011, 7:52 PM
This. If it's over 50 it doesn't matter if it's sporterized or not for the person to person transfer exemption if that's what you're looking at.

ATF might argue with you about that, given that they require a manufacturer's license of those who convert C&R guns into modern sporters, then sell them. If they agreed with you position, they would only need an 03 FFL. Their position seems to be that major modifications to a firearm equals manufacture. This would therefore "reset the clock".

Exceptions to this would be period correct modifications and minor modifications.

Experimentalist
06-06-2011, 8:11 PM
The BATFE FAQ clearly states that:

Q: What modifications can be made on C&R firearms without changing their C&R classification?

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.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios-relics.html#modifications

emcon5
06-06-2011, 8:24 PM
The BATFE FAQ clearly states the exact same think it said when paul0660 quoted it 5 posts back


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/curios-relics.html#modifications

Yeah, we are all aware of what ATF says, but that problem some folks have is that is not what the law says.

And for face to face transfers in CA, the California Penal Code I cited above says "as defined in Section 478.11 of Title27 of the Code of Federal Regulations"

That CFR Cite (also quoted above) says to be C&R a firearm needs to meet any of three conditions, one of which is "manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date".

It does not say "as defined by ATF Ruling 85-10"

For a transaction that is not in interstate commerce, between 2 non-prohibited persons, with a firearm that if completely legal under federal law, does ATF's opinion even matter?

Experimentalist
06-06-2011, 8:35 PM
For a transaction that is not in interstate commerce, between 2 non-prohibited persons, with a firearm that if completely legal under federal law, does ATF's opinion even matter?

Seriously?

Yes.

By way of example, the ATF is clearly disregarding Montana (and other State's) Sovereign gun laws. The law has ruled that even intrastate transactions can be Federally regulated if they can affect interstate commerce (there was a case involving the intrastate sale of wheat that helped set that precedent).

The OP asked what the rules are. I think that has been definitively answered.

emcon5
06-06-2011, 9:35 PM
Seriously?Seriously.

Yes.
OK, then what would I be charged with, and by who, if I purchased that sportorized P17 from 1918 face to face?

By way of example, the ATF is clearly disregarding Montana (and other State's) Sovereign gun laws. The law has ruled that even intrastate transactions can be Federally regulated if they can affect interstate commerce (there was a case involving the intrastate sale of wheat that helped set that precedent). That was for a manufacturer, in the business of building firearms for sale. Nobody is arguing that ATF has jurisdiction to oversee manufacturers and dealers.

This is a guy who owns a single modified 93 year old rifle, who wants to sell it, and by the letter of the law, federal and state, there doesn't seem to be any law against it me giving him a wad of cash and taking it home.

Hell, the ATF FAQ Item you posted is wishy-washy enough it actually uses the phrase "It is the opinion".

The OP asked what the rules are. I think that has been definitively answered.I do not.