1917 DWM Luger, Artillery style xx62e
 

I realize that what I just picked up might be a reproduction rig with a "1917 DWM" Luger. Finish is a little rough, but it has not been refinished. The magazine body is a silver color with a wooden bottom marked Germany. The firearm is a little loose compared to the other (S/42) Luger I own, and needs to be checked out before I attempt to shoot it.

1917 DWM xx62 suffix:e matching parts except sight base ( [L (\) 24] , can only be seen with sight set up for long distance)

My questions are mainly about the stock and holster that came with it. I have not attached it or really have had much interest in the set-up believing the dealer, that it was just a curiosity as it would create a SBR without the paperwork if attached to the gun (The holster and shoulder board being reproduction). What proof marks need to be present, and does the stock need to be an original to attach to the pistol.

If you have an Artillery model Luger and an artillery stock, original or accurate repro., then you are OK. Where you can run into trouble is mating the arty. stock to a Navy, or 4" Luger, then you have the SBR. And if you sell off the artillery Luger but keep the stock around and also have in your posession non-artillery Lugers, then you have also made a target of yourself.
I don't know how aggressively they will prosecute (persecute) you for minor indiscretions, but believe me when I say that you do not want to find out. Cases are generally selected for prosecution on the basis of winability, not intent or seriousness or the afront to social order of the crime.
So when in doubt, don't.
But DO get us those pictures...
dju

Here is a pic of the left side of the gun and the proofmarks of the gun

it is perfectly legal and NOT an issue to own a artillery stock without an artillery!

it is only illegal to put one onto a non-acceptable luger i.e. a 4 inch luger / and even though it is not legal, there are exceptions and the average person would not know

It is legal to attach a navy stock to a navy / an artillery stock to a artillery / an Ideal stock to a 1900 and a few more exceptions.

TOTALLY legal to own a stock and no gun to go with it - heck, you can buy a short AR-15 barrel, putting it onto a AR15 and making it a Car-15 is what is illegal.

Ed

Ed:
I respectfully disagree. Back in the day of the auto sears for the AR15, if you had one auto sear (or the bolt/carrier/trigger parts for the M16) AND you also had in your possession an AR15, it was "slap the cuffs on" time. The parts did not have to be on the gun.
So, my rationale that owning an artillery stock, not owning a pistol that it is legal on, would be as heinous in the eyes of the BATF.
It's probably academic, but that is one group that I sincerely hope to never do business with.
dju

Dave, two totally diferent things here. Class 3 sear /unregistered machine gun compared to antique original parts/ accesories. This issue is so old already, John

David, this same thinking is why many folks from years ago had stock lugs ground off.

There are laws about owning class III items, there are NO regulations or laws that state it is illegal to OWN a stock.

Thank you guys for answering my post, but the issue is not clear for me. I need to know about the reproduction aspect of this. I believe it to be an artillery luger, but would it be considered a SBR if a reproduction stock (versus original) were attached. One was included but I was informed not to attach it as it would make it an illegal SBR.

I realize that attaching an original would be perfectly legal, but I have a reproduction rig for it (like stated I was instructed to attach it would be unregistered SBR due to the stock being new). I will trash it and look for an original if thats what it takes, as I need no ATF issues.

The issue is easy I live in Michigan, we have no SBR's allowed. The only exemption would be a luger, hi-power or other C&R that is not considered a SBR due to it being exempt.

As long as the reproduction is an artillery one, it is perfectly legal

The BATFE defines this as 'constructive intent', i.e, owning all the parts necessary to 'construct' a class III item. This is a completely different issue from owning a stock. Be aware, however, that in the eyes of the BATFE, an 18" shoelace is also considered a 'machine gun' and is prohibited.. because said shoelace can be used to bumpfire a semi-auto. Logic flies out the wndow when the alphabet boys get involved...

The BATFE defines this as 'constructive intent', i.e, owning all the parts necessary to 'construct' a class III item. This is a completely different issue from owning a stock.

I agree that owning an artillery stock is no crime. But owning a stock, and having it with, but not on, a non-artillery Luger COULD be, using the BATF rationale, a crime. And BATF rationale has NEVER been confused with common sense.

Dave, two totally diferent things here. Class 3 sear /unregistered machine gun compared to antique original parts/ accesories. This issue is so old already, John

And JTD, yes this issue is so old already, however short barreled rifles, short shotguns, supressors, etc. are viewed with the same scrutiny and suspicion under the GCA of 1933 as machine guns.

I will now back away from this thread, not because I feel less strongly about the points that I have tried to make, but because I simply have no skin in this game.
Carry on!
dju

Let me see if I can "horsey-duckie" this situation.
1) You can own as many stocks as you wish if you have no guns to which they may be attached.
2) You may own any original or close copy reproduction stock if you have a corresponding Luger to go with it. This is a one for one basis, i.e. you can't own 3 LP08 stocks with only one LP08 to go with them if you own other short barreled Lugers to which the extra two stocks could be affixed. That is why I got rid of my repro Navy stock when I acquired an original since I own only one Navy Luger. I wouldn't worry too much about this one for one restriction...I doubt that it would be too much of an issue as long as you owned at least one legitimate corresponding Luger. Collectors tend to accumulate "spares" or trading material so there may be some leeway on this issue.
3) You may not own any stocks for which you have no corresponding model Lugers, but you do own short barreled Lugers. Note that this an important distinction and negates the assertion that "it is perfectly legal and NOT an issue to own a artillery stock without an artillery".

The "constructive intent" issue may not be rigidly enforced but it is always there and can be used against anyone who is in violation of the above 3 conditions.

Ron, where did you get this information?

There is nothing in the BATF regulations that says that stocks are considered illegal to own?

They simply state that certain stocks are legal with certain lugers.

In fact, reading the regulations, it is confusing, surprise, surprise; They mix the artillery and the navy into the same paragraph without separating them...


These are slightly different than LAST time I looked, personally, I think the question should be asked on whether stocks themselves are illegal. ?

and then this....

Ed,
The regulation states "exemptions" and they all refer to stocks that have been removed from the purview of the NFA because they are associated with their respective model Lugers. For example look at the statement "This exemption applies only to the listed Naval Luger pistols if mated to the Naval Luger stock and will not apply if the Naval Luger pistol is mated to the Artillery stock". This one instance in particular that clearly states the intentions of the exemptions. You have to have the proper Luger to match up with the proper stock. If you have a stock and do not have the corresponding Luger to go with it, it is not exempt and therefore illegal.
So I stand by my statement that owing a Luger stock for which you do not have the proper corresponding model Luger, and you also own short barreled Luger(s) or other models of Lugers for which the stock is not correct, you have no exemption. Therefore the stock is illegal to own because it demonstrates "constructive intent" to create a SBR regardless of whether you ever attach it to one of the short barreled Lugers.

This was always my understanding, but I have been wrong many times before.

I probably should add a nuance of explanation to my former statement. It is not the owning of a stock by itself that is illegal, it is the possession of a stock without having a correct corresponding Luger if you also own any Luger(s) for which the stock is not correct. It is the improper combination of stock and gun that is illegal, not the stock per se. You have to have a gun that is correct for the stock to qualify for the exemption if you own other Lugers that do not qualify…period.

Ron, sorry, I agree you have to have the correct stock to put on the correct Luger, but saying I can't have a navy stock because I don't own a navy is weird to me.

Ed,
It is weird to me too, but if you don't have a Navy and you do have another Luger with a stock lug you have the ingredients for a SBR going strictly by BATFE rules. It seems to me that a dealer wouldn't be subject to this restriction but I don't know for sure. Us plain old collectors probably don't have any way around the rules if the feds want to get picky. Reality bites sometimes.

OK, I have read this thread from start to finish. Confusing, but I think I have gleaned the information I need. However to make sure I am not misinterpreting it I will state what I see and see if it causes any commotion:

1) I own a 1918 Erfurt P08 4.5" barrel that has the "lug" on the back of the grip.

2) Having stated the above, I read this thread to say that I can now own a stock, EVEN a REPRODUCTION, that could be fitted to my 1918 Erfurt pistol without fear of the ATF busting down my door. Correct??

3) I dont have to, but I could also fit a long barrel (8")?

I AM an FFL (07) so more than just my door is at stake here, my livelihood as a licensed gunsmith is also at stake. NO, I do not have any SOTs...yet...

Fitting ANY kind of stock to your pistol would make it an Illegal SBR, (Short Barreled Rifle). Adding a long barrel could make it legal, but it would have to be 16" long, not 8". The deal is that although you may use a reproduction stock to complete an "authentic" Naval or Artillery rig, you CANNOT fake the pistol to look like a Navy or Artillery, unless ALL the pistols components are period and correct. As an example, if you had an 8" Navy style barrel but not the correct back sight, etc. you might be in violation. My belief is that the pistol itself must be a period piece and correct example of a pistol which was once issued with a stock. This is a hazy area that I would not want to push ATF on.

Not correct. You may not own a stock and a short barreled Luger unless you also own another Luger that is the correct type for the stock.

Lets say that you only have your 1918 Erfurt and you buy a LP08 or Navy stock, repro or original, you now own the components of a short barreled rifle under BATFE rules. It doesn't matter if you never actually attach the stock, you have established "probable intent".

Far be it for me to try to explain the bureaucratic mindset, but imagine law enforcement personnel getting word that a certain culprit is possessing or shooting a machine gun. You get there and he/she has a stock AR-15, but also has, stored nearby but not together, a drop-in auto sear and various M16 parts. Using this ruling you can bust him. Or her.
It all seems a bit more convoluted when discussing a WW1 Luger, however.
dju

David,

You are correct. Possession of the components of a class III weapon constitutes intent according to the ATF. It doesn't matter if they are assembled together into a select fire weapon.

So, in our case, as Ron, Doug and others have confirmed, you must have the completely correct and appropriate Luger in order to have the specifically associated stock. The purpose of the exemption is to allow collectors to have historically correct examples of firearms.

Artillery model + Artillery Stock (original or reproduction) - OK
Navy model + Navy Stock (original or reproduction) - OK
There are a few other recently authorized combinations.

Possession of an Artillery stock without a complete Artillery Luger, but with any other Luger that has a stock lug - Not OK.

Possession of a Navy stock without a complete Navy Luger, but with any other Luger that has a stock lug - Not OK.

Etc...

There probably are stranger things in the regulations.

Marc

OK then..Let's say you have a dozen Artillery stocks and only a half dozen Artillery Lugers..From what I am reading you could have the dozen stocks and only have to have at least one Artillery pistol?

You know there are funny little cubicle dwellers with very thick glasses deep in the bowels of the BATF who could answer that one. But I certainly can not.
Anyone?
dju

Wait! What if I have a 4" Luger, a piece of steel, a file, a drill, a tree in my backyard, an axe, a saw, some sandpaper and varnish? Is that okay?
Marc

Rich.."Dont try to stop me from bein a MAN!" Betcha can't name the movie that's a quote from!

Marc..technically I bet there could be a case where charges could be made exactly along those lines...

I think this statement could be construed as "intent". Be careful!
Marc

All it takes nowadays to be a criminal is one encounter with a government official having a bad hair day.
Marc

Like the "tar baby'" it's best not to encounter it..and deffinately do not touch it!

Absolutely. All you need is one. (Sounds something like a Beatles song, doesn't it...All your need is love :))

Ron is correct. As long as you have one correct pistol, you can own as many correct stocks for that pistol you want.
Another example; as long as I own a registered, full auto M16, I can own as many internal full auto part sets and short AR/M16 barrels that I want. But if I only owned a registered AR15 SBR, I could own all the short barrels I want, but NOT the full auto internals.

Is this still true if the non-correct Luger has no stock lug--meaning that it could not be physically combined? I'd think this would not support a claim of constructive intent, and be legal.

I would agree with this. If there is no readily available method of attaching the stock to a pistol, then you would be ok, i.e. a pre 1913 Luger and a stock. I would not think that ATF would pursue a situation like this.

The BATFE will not pursue any situation which does not forward an agenda. But if you have pissed off someone at BATFE or above, they might pursue ANY situation that would at the very minimum, harass you.

Best dont piss anyone off and you wont be bothered.

Of course I don't take that advice, being a leader of the TEA Party movement in this area. So, the obverse of that coin is, I keep my nose clean....always....