FWIW, this isn’t necessarily an NFA violation. Attaching the stock would be, since it’s neither an original nor repro LP.08 stock, but simply having the two pieces (gun and stock) together isn’t.

For the super paranoid, however, there are ways around the fear... A few options in no particular order: register the gun as an SBR; buy an LP.08 stock; remove the “removable” stock lug; throw away the stock; throw away the gun; store the stock in a separate location from the gun; write a letter seeking to have this particular gun exempted from the purview of the NFA...

But if we’re going to go all ape ****, let’s do the same with the Benke Thiemann Luger stocks, the MGC rifle style stocks, those toy “Luftwaffe” stocks, etc. and register a gun to go with each stock. A strict reading of the law and of ATF opinion letters (which neither carry the weight of law nor apply to anyone other than the addressee) would preclude possession of any of these simultaneous to possession of a Luger. I’ve been in the NFA game a long time and honestly think we’re making a mountain out of a mole hill here with this rare and collectible combination.

What the owner does with it is none of my business, but I feel remiss not mentioning it to him before he goes walking around a gun show with an unregistered NFA weapon. And the idea of BATF agents at gun shows is, IMHO, not paranoia.
Well, I guess we've thoroughly beaten this horse...
Thanks all!
dju

I don't think anyone went "ape" over this by just stating the facts.
The guy needs info to make an informed decision about what to do or not do with this contraption.

Better to be cautious than caught, JMHO.:cheers:

Not altogether correct. ATF has a lovely charge called "Constructive Intent". Merely possessing both parts can be construed as a violation. This legal jargon is often used to charge people who own a legal AR15 and a short barreled upper, or full auto parts not placed inside the gun.

That goes back to the old "drop in auto sear" days of the AR. If you had one of those sears AND had an AR15 they deemed you to be in violation. Even if they were not together.
dju

I'm familiar with the whole concept of constructive possession, but there are other factors to consider. Topping the list is whether or not an item meets the statutory definition of a Short-Barelled rifle. Likewise, is there a lawful use of the parts? The Thompson Center case (but one example) demonstrated the ability to own parts capable of producing an SBR when there also exists a lawful use for the parts outside of the NFA. (I.e., possession of an Encore receiver, a variety of short barrels, long barrels, and shoulder stock does not in and of itself put the owner in violation of the NFA vis a vis an unregistered SBR.) Another issue is intent. Mens rea, I believe... Again, this is why the BATF isn't chasing down every collector who has a Benke Theimann stock on their Luger (which clearly DOES meet the statutory definition of an SBR.)

Referring to machine guns briefly... Machine guns are a whole different animal than Short-Barelled Rifles/Shotguns. Machine guns are defined the whole, by their receiver or alone, or by "a combination of parts." A machien gun receiver in and of itself is a machine gun. So is a combination of parts designed/intended to convert a gun to full-auto. A DIAS is an example, So is an M2 parts kit (trigger housing, sear, hammer, trip, connector lever, selector switch.) 26USC CH53 5845 and 18USC CH44 921 clearly state this. But an SBR/SBS is different.

An SBR (or SBS) is defined by its features. For example, remove the 8"barrel from your AR15 and it's no longer an SBR - without a barrel it no longer meets the statutory definition of an SBR (i.e., it no longer has a barrel less than 16". QED it is not an SBR. The BATF has said this repeatedly. The Thompson Center case says it too (as well as a few other things.))

Back to my original post, if the owner of this "collectible" monstrosity actually attached the stock, he very well could be prosecuted for an unregistered SBR (just like someone with a Benke Thiemann stock installed could.) If he wanted to cover his bases concretely he could file a Form 1 and register it. Or he could remove the stock lug. It not only appears to already be removable, but it certainly won't damage any collector or monetary value if he did so. He could also buy a cheap repro LP.08 stock. The he's got a lawful combination, and another "collectible" stock; thus he has a lawful combination of parts ref. Thompson Center.

I appreciate the well-intentioned posts and warnings and no doubt the OP does too, but let's keep it in perspective too, and not go 'round like Chicken Little.

EOM

Another point is that the interpretation of the ATF's own rules can differ from one agent to the next. I was able to attend a seminar recently where various agents of the State Police, Sheriff's Office, ATF, and local and state officials gave comments on various topics such as home defense, concealed carry, NYS pistol regulations, etc. The ATF agent was particularly illuminating, and his advice on whether a firearm was in compliance or not was to call him and ask. :)

FWIW, he seemed like a nice guy. :D

"but let's keep it in perspective too, and not go 'round like Chicken Little."
If warning a member of a very clear felony violation of the GCA of 1934 is going 'round like chicken little, then so be it.
dju

That’s the point David, it’s not a clear felony violation.

So, are you willing to risk jail time or very serious fines over so nebulous a definition, completely subject to whether a local ATF office wants to take you to the cleaners? The warnings are practical, based on historical cases. To trivialize the risk is irresponsible. Constructive intent, means just that. If you truly believe this case would not be pursued by ATF, if they had an agenda, you are sadly mistaken.

There’s no harm in prudence, but what I provided is far from “nebulous.” I’ll say though, I’m curious if you and others will demonstrate the same sense of...”concern” and assertiveness the next time someone posts a photo of Luger with a stock not specifically listed under Section III of the C&R list.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece and backed it up with statute and fact and case law, not emotion and panic.

That's pretty much standard procedure.

Whether or not the regulations are nebulous, practical interpretations of them vary. Statute is interpreted by case law, so that seems a reasonable path when seeking guidance. But unless the BATFE is an exception, it is possible for individual agents to make incorrect calls in situations for which their knowledge of the law is incomplete, or simply incorrect. Once a forensic juggernaut is set in motion, it tends to be difficult to stop, so it makes some sense not to get the ball rolling in the first place, even at the risk of over-applying the precautionary principle.

"I’ll say though, I’m curious if you and others will demonstrate the same sense of...”concern” and assertiveness the next time someone posts a photo of Luger with a stock not specifically listed under Section III of the C&R list."

I certainly have been, and will continue to do so. And the only "concern and assertiveness" I have seen is a direct result of others being either ignorant, complacent, or dismissive of federal statutes.

I guess the way to answer this issue is to present it in writing to the BATF in Washington to get an opinion.

Good day to all and once again, we've probably beaten this horse about enough.

dju

Good grief Bill, I see no sign of "emotion or panic" here; and we have been consistent in saying that the stock is ok till "attached"(probably).

We do advise or warn guys about stock compatibility when odd combinations are posted. Some folks know about the rules, but many do not.

While you are correct that lugers and stocks may not be high on the ATF list for things to "go after", if they even have one, there are known "rules" that folks should be aware of and if one chooses one can stay inside the lines.

One thing that makes this one particularly egregious is that the stock is not remotely similar to any "original" stock , which are enumerated in the references you mention.

And that is all I have to say about that.:cheers:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I'm sure our founding fathers are spinning in their graves! These types of threads boil my blood!!

Me, too! I'd fashion a swoopy tin-foil helmet, wear a red Navajo blanket as a cape, aviator goggles, some kind of formal military dress jacket, those ballooned riding breeches, and maybe a pair of Wellington boots. :thumbup:

I would be an attention-getter here, but I'm pretty sure that in California, nobody would even notice... :p

Merry Christmas!

"jodhpurs"!

What irritates me is that the "founding fathers" could not write what WE think they meant to say, too many dangling modifying phrases that only confuse the issue and give those "against" ammunition.:mad:

Here here, couldn't have said it better myself!

This thread about a remarkably garish morphidite has gone deep into legal country. ....

If Liberace had been a WWll German Artillery Officer the firearm in question would have looked good on him.