When Does a Blackpowder Firearm Require an FFL?

[Nardo1895]

I have a customer shipping me a Thomposn Center Encore muzzleloader. I had assumed muzzleloaders did not require a FFL, but the seller wanted a copy of my license so that got me doing some research. I believe the rifle in question does require a FFL because you can swap out the barrel and make it cartridge firing. Do I have that right? Are there a lot of those types of firearms out there?

If that is correct, why don't the repo blackpowder revolvers require a FFL? Many of those can be fitted with a cartridge conversion kit.


Thanks

[REH]

My understanding is the ignition source determines if a FFL is required. If it uses a 209 or center fire primer a FFL is needed. Cap primer, no FFL needed.

[Librarian]

You're looking at 18 USC 921 (a)(3) and (a)(16) -

antique firearm

[Burbur]

Consider the Encore Muzzleloader and Remington 700 Ultimate MZ as being built on the receiver of a modern centerfire rifle, and it is that receiver that is already considered a firearm before the muzzle loader version was invented.

If someone built a blackpowder, muzzle loading gun from an AR receiver, that receiver is the firearm; no exemption for it being an antique firearm or replica.

[Quiet]

Under CA laws...

Penal Code 16170
(b) As used in Section 16520, Section 16650, subdivision (a) of Section 23630, paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 27505, and subdivision (a) of Section 31615,

Under Federal laws...

18 USC 921

[condor]

Apparently the barrel can be changed. I located a breakdown of the Encore and it shows the barrel detached from the receiver/trigger. Tried to copy and paste the pic here but for some reason I couldn't?? I don't know that much about Thompson Encores, but if they have a basic receiver for all calibers..if there are any??.. then it could be 'rebarreled' to a center fire cartridge.... There something in all the above pastes that addresses that...

[Nardo1895]

Thanks, I think that answers it. I had just assumed anything muzzle loading was exempt. I didn't think about the ability to swap barrels to convert to cartridge.

I see the language does not include:

"...or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, CYLINDER or any combination thereof."

Which answers why BP revolvers are ok.

[shootsocal_dave]

Can the Remington 700ML be converted to a firearm? I thought that was the point of the "ML" designation, that it was somewhat different from normal 700 actions.

[I Swan]

My understanding is the ignition source determines if a FFL is required. If it uses a 209 or center fire primer a FFL is needed. Cap primer, no FFL needed.

I've never heard of a black powder firearm being considered a modern firearm requiring 4473 because it uses a shotgun primer. I have heard some FFL's claim that Ruger Old Army black powder revolvers need to have paperwork done and are not exempt like other cap and ball revolvers.

[Tyke8319]

[Nardo1895]

The plot thickens...

My customer on the Thompson Center Encore asked me to check with DOJ to see if I needed to register it as a pistol. (I assume these can be fitted with a short barrel and a handgrip?) So I talked to my field rep. She indicated that I needed to deal with it "as it is currently configured" which is a muzzleloading rifle and therefor no DROS. She said to take a picture and warn the owner its his responsibility to not make a center-fire firearm out of it.

I managed to run down an ATF newsletter from 2/2005 which states in part:

"We frequently receive questions concerning the sale of modern in-line muzzle loading rifles. Several years ago ATF determined that an in-line muzzle loading rifle using #209 shotgun primers for ignition was not an antique firearm and was subject to all provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA). However, the GCA was amended in 1998 and many in-line muzzle loading rifles are now antique firearms and are exempted from the provisions of the GCA"

It then goes on to list the various criteria for antique firearms including this one:

(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black power substitute, which cannot used fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "antique firearm" shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof."

This language matches that provided by Quiet in this string which is from 18 USC 921. I think this pretty clearly indicates the Thompson is not exempt under the antique criteria.

So now I have a dilemma. I could call my ATF rep, but 18 USC 921 seems pretty clear. I guess I could go ahead and DROS it and then deal with the mistake, if it is one, when I have my next DOJ audit. I could also send my DOJ rep a copy of 18 USC 921 but something inside me says its not always good to point out a regulator's error. I thought about just doing a 4473, but without the NICS/DROS check its not valid.

Any advise?

[kemasa]

...
Any advise?

Post your inventory and make a run for the border (I would suggest Northern border).