When is a 50 Year Old Firearm Not a C&R?

[Nardo1895]

I have a client who had a sporterized Enfield rifle shipped to me. He has a C&R + COE. I know the C&R regs say a sporterized military firearm is no longer a C&R. But the rifle is still 50 years old.

If I'm understanding the rules right, I can transfer a 50 year old Model 700 Remington bolt action as a C&R, but not a 70 year old Enfield converted to a sporting rifle? I suppose there is no way to prove when the rifle was "re-manufactured" which maybe ATF believes to be the new starting date for the 50 year C&R clock?

Going back to the hypothetical Remington 700, it could have a replacement barrel, trigger, stock, ... and still be a C&R, right?

I'm confused.

The issue ins't the transfer itself, its whether or not the 10 day wait applies.

[Tyke8319]

Looking up the federal definition of C&R might help with your dilemma.

[Tyke8319]

Typically to fall under C&R definition the firearm should be in it's ORIGINAL manufactured condition.

"ATF has recognized only complete, assembled firearms as curios or relics. ATF’s classification of surplus military firearms as curios or relics has extended only to those firearms in their original military configuration. Frames or receivers of curios or relics are not generally recognized as curios or relics."

Any spoterizing that takes place has altered the firearm from its original condition and therefore would not be considered a C&R

[Ora Serrata]

Carefully read the second paragraph under #3. It states only in their original military condition. I ran into this just last week at a shop. Bought 2 sporterized rifles with cut stocks. Not in original military condition means it's treated as a modern firearm.

[Tyke8319]

Once altered it's not ORIGINAL...ever.

[robertmneal93]

I'm not saying I'm more or less right than anyone else, but here's what I read directly from the
(also here is the link directly to the ECFR.gov page)

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 official definition does not refer to "original configuration" but the ATF website does. So which source prevails? The CFR's, or the ATF's website? Given the ATF is supposed to be enforcing the CFR's as written, I would imagine the CFR would take precedent. I'm not a lawyer though

The "original military configuration" seems to come into play in the importation laws


However, the ATF then talks about merging the importation laws with the definition of C&R to get that "original configuration" idea which is talked about in ruling 85-10. This ruling, however, seems to just deal with classification of imported military firearms when dealing with C&R.

This passage:

In classifying firearms as curios or relics under this regulation, ATF has recognized only
assembled firearms as curios or relics. Moreover, ATF’s classification of surplus military
firearms as curios or relics has extended only to those firearms in their original military
configuration. Frames or receivers of curios or relics and surplus military firearms not in
their original military configuration were not generally recognized as curios or relics by
ATF since they were not of special interest or value as collector’s items. More
specifically, they did not meet the definition of curio or relic in section 178.11 as firearms
of special interest to collectors by reason of a quality other than is ordinarily associated
with sporting firearms or offensive or defensive weapons. Furthermore, they did not
ordinarily have monetary value as novel, rare, or bizarre firearms; nor were they generally
considered curios or relics because of their association with some historical figure, period
or event.

I personally think this passage is saying to be imported as a C&R, it must #1 AND, #2 OR #3, of the actual law. This is pure speculation, as it doesn't explicitly say that in the ruling.


This document is referenced in the passage below as well.





Ah, yes. They've finally mixed together the legal definition of C&R with the importation ruling. But where is this combination written into law? Why is it not present in the definition of C&R? It seems like the FTB has essentially taken one consideration of C&Rs, which is importation, and mixed it with another, which is internal sales and transfer. So this isn't written in the definition of C&R, but it is written into the importation laws in the form of permissive regarding importation of milsurp C&R's. So how can they just blend together two flavors of the law like that? I personally don't know

Here we also see exemptions for sight changes, addition of scope mounts, and sling swivels, all clearly stated additions (and through logic, I would believe removal) of said items.
That being said, if someone adds a scope and removes the iron sights, if they can readily be reinstalled, is this a change from original configuration? I would think not
If someone grinds down the sight bases off the receiver and barrel, is this a change from original configuration? I would say yes, since re-installation is both unlikely and impossible.

It also clearly states that changing a stock with something that would be issued is ok as well. Does this mean that the enfield sold with just the buttstock, because the rest of the stock set was say, eaten by termites, is no longer a c&r in original configuration? What if somebody didn't have money to replace the front stock and handguards and sold the rifle to someone who intended to replace the missing pieces? Where does the line form to take the rifle out of original configuration? This segment does not specifically state what sporterizing is, and to what extent a sporter must be "sporter'd" to be out of original configuration.

Personally, besides for the conditions clearly listed, I would think that non-"original configuration" would start at permanent, irreversible change to the firearm (again, such as grinding metal parts off or jeweling a bolt), but that's my interpretation of it

Once altered it's not ORIGINAL...ever.

The problem I have here, is through this logic, if I take my Garand, throw it in a polymer sporter stock for a weekend of hunting, then come home and put it back into it's wooden, USGI style stock set, then technically I've removed it from being a C&R forever, as I placed it into a polymer sporter stock for a weekend. I think the "polymer stock" idea, as stated in that ruling, is more geared toward people who take an old bolt gun, jewel the bolt, throw a scope on, grind off all the extra bits, cut down as much wood off of it as possible. Again, simple speculation and just something I'm bringing up for the sake of discussion

[Nardo1895]

Robert makes a good point. It does seem logical that ATF may be mixing what qualifies as a C&R and what can be imported as a C&R. However, even if true, ATF's webpage (in part) says this:

and in its original configuration, would qualify as a C&R firearm.

Could be a case of agency overreach.

Maybe I should have asked my question differently. Maybe I should have asked "As a FFL, would you release a sporterized rifle that started life as a military C&R without requiring the 10 day wait?"

[Tyke8319]

No.

[Nardo1895]

Thanks, that's what I think as well although I don't think that is what the reg itself says.

Mike