Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Seems to be a bit of confusion out there as to the legality of displaying or shooting your Luger with the stock attached. I work in law enforcement out here in California and in my spare time I collect and shoot Lugers and Broomhandles. These pistols are listed as Curio or Relic by the ATF and as such are not registrable under the National Firearms Act. Go to the ATF web site, it's all there in black and white. I keep copies of the curio or relics list down loaded from this site to hand to those people at the range whose sole task it seems is to annoy as many people as possible with their vast knowledge of gun laws, history, politics, etc. I became fascinated with these very cool guns at an early age. A pistol with a neat detachable shoulder stock, what a concept. In grade school I was reprimanded by more than one teacher for drawing Broomhandles on my desk. Shooting one of these classics is like driving a vintage sports car. So don't be intimidated by some
know it all at the range with the stern warning of federal laws being violated. It is perfectly legal to shoot and display your Luger, Mauser, Astra, Radom, etc with the stock attached in all fifty states. Even out here on the Left Coast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
It is refreshing to hear from a law enforcement official supporting gun sports, particularly in California! However, I must temper your well intentioned comments with a couple of caveats. No short barrel Luger with a stock lug may be attached to a shoulder stock. Only those specific Lugers, Mausers etc. designated by the BATF may be attached to and shot with a shoulder stock. Further, the stock must be of the proper type for the Luger to which it is attached, e.g. an artillery board stock may only be attached to an artillery Luger, it may not be legally attached to a Navy or Carbine. Individuals that wish to attach a stock to their handgun need to read the BATFE rules for C&R weapons to determine if their stock/handgun combination has been specifically exempt from the provisions of the NFA and is considered legal. In reviewing the rules myself, I have not found a reference to Radoms with shoulder stock as being a legal combination. Caution is advised, know the rules and then enjoy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
Ron,
Thanks for those comments. Could you possibly cite or direct us to the ATF regulations that you are referencing and/or any other regs about stocked pistols INCLUDING legality of reproduction stocks? Thanks for your efforts!
Tim
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
The reference I use is BATF "Firearms Curios or Relics List ATF P 5300.11. Section III.Weapons removed from the NFA as collector's items and classified as Curios or relics under the GCA. I believe a memo from BATF was sent out stating that reproductions were legal if constructed to original specs and used with the same restrictions. I would advise owners to carefully study these laws. Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
Tim.

The BATF website with the C&R list/guidelines is at http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/curios-relics/

The legality of reproduction shoulder stocks was addressed in a 1981 letter to the director of Odin International. I have a redacted copy that I got from the BATF site a few years back but I have not been able to find it on their site recently. It addresses "a reproduction shoulder stock which either duplicates or closely approximates the dimensions and configuration of the original stock". I will try to post it here:

1981 letter on use of reproduction Luger and High Power shoulder stocks

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20226

MAY 29 1981

T:T:F:CHB
7540
Dr.
Odin international
Fairfax, VA

Dear Dr. :

This refers to your letters of March 13 and March 30, 1981, in
which you ask that certain Luger and Browning Hi-Power pistols
equipped with reproduction shoulder stocks be considered for
removal from the provisions of the National Firearms Act.

It is not the policy of this Bureau to render a classification on
a shoulder stock which in and of itself is not subject to the
provisions of the Gun Control Act or the NFA. However, as you are
aware, certain Luger and Browning Hi-Power pistols when accompanied
by original shoulder stocks have been removed from the purview of
the NFA.

Our Firearms Classification Panel has examined your request and it
is their opinion that the above mentioned pistols equipped with
currently made reproduction shoulder stocks which either duplicate
or closely approximate the dimensions and configuration of the
original stocks would also be primarily of interest to collectors
and not likely to be used as weapons. Therefore, any Luger or
Browning Hi-Power pistol which would be removed from the purview of
the NFA if equipped with an original shoulder stock, would also not
be subject to the NFA if equipped with a reproduction shoulder
stock which either duplicates or closely approximates the
dimensions and configuration of the original stock.

It must be pointed out that should one of the subject reproduction
stocks be attached to any handgun which has not been specifically
removed from the purview of the NFA with an original stock, the
combination would be subject to all of the registration and
transfer provisions of the NFA.

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]
C. Michael Hoffman
Assistant Director
(Technical and Scientific Services)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
Ron, Bill,
Thanks!
Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
Yes. Would you post it? Thanks!
Tim
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
1,619 Posts
This is pretty faded so will type it out.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226

April 28,1982

Dear Mr -------

This refers to your letter of March 1,1982, in which you ask if Mauser Model 1896 Broomhandle pistols with reproduction shoulder stocks,have been removed from the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA)

We have previously determined that all German manufactured variations of the Mauser Model 1896 pistol, manufactured prior to 1940. accompanied by an original German manufactured detachable wooden holster/stock have been removed from the purview of the NFA. We have further determined that the above semiautomatic pistols accompanied by a currently made reproduction wooden holster/shoulder stock which either duplicates or closely approximates the dimensions and configurations of the original stock. would also be primarily of interest to collectors and not likely to be used as weapons and are, therefore, also removed from the purview of the NFA.
It must be pointed out that should one of the subject reproduction shoulder stocks be attached to any handgun other than the described Mauser pistol, the combination would still be subject to the provisions of the NFA.

We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.


Sincerely yours

Signed C, Michael Hoffman

Assistant Director
( Technical and Scientific Services )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
Bill,
Thanks for your efforts in providing this for us! I'm assuming there's been no change in the BATF's position as to these repo stocks and their use. As for the broomhandle Mauser, when I'm at the range I frequently see German produced Mausers being fired with Chinese stocks that are of obvious similar construction to the German manufactured stocks. The shooters that I talk with consider these to be "repos" even though they were Chinese manufactured for the 1930 commercials (usually) that went to China.
May we assume that there are similar regulations for the Inglis Hi-powers for which there are so many stocks now available, both original and repo? Has anyone seen or know of a letter stating the BATF's position? Thanks!
Tim H.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,917 Posts
I hate to drag out an old thread but this topic has come up on another site and I am trying to get some clarification. I would much prefer a don't ask, don't change policy. I have been told that BATFE reveresed the 1981 opinion letter in a 1999 opinion letter. Is this possible? Does anyone here know of this and if so can the letter that reversed this opinion be provided? Thank you!

Regards,
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,896 Posts
Burgess, you probably are referring to this letter:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter70.txt

Which involves itself specifically only with the Canadian Inglis contract Chinese HiPower.

The 1981 letter is:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter58.txt

And discusses Lugers and all other models of the HiPower.

As usual with a bureaucracy, one hand (the Luger opinion) doesn't know what the other hand (the HiPower opinion) is doing... As usual, there is no rational reason for the diversion of finding.

Since the letter is rather specific, I don't see interference with the 1981 Luger Artillery / Navy and Reproduction Stock ruling or the 1982 Mauser Broomhandle ruling.

For future reference, this person has collected a number of ATF opinion letters:

http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/law.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,917 Posts
Is there a letter that specifically addresses Mauser 1896 ( C-96 or Broomhandle) pistols and reproduction shoulder stocks? Oops, I just re-read this thread an saw Wlyon's letter. Dis regard this post And thanks to everyone who replied.

Thank you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
This is an old thread and I just read that the op was a Ca Leo. Hate to inform him but state law does not allow short barrel rifles with out proper permits. You can have the gun and shoulder board but not attached.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,350 Posts
This is an old thread and I just read that the op was a Ca Leo. Hate to inform him but state law does not allow short barrel rifles with out proper permits. You can have the gun and shoulder board but not attached.
State law trumps Federal regulations? The Luger and Mauser documents cited exempt the stocked examples from "short rifle" status and removes them from NFA restrictions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
I had to do a lot of cross reference of ca law but I am incorrect. Per ca law if you are C&R ok the state is ok. But if it is under 30" over all length then you have an assault weapon even if it is a C&R.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top