Legality of repro Artillery stock?
 

I shared some pictures of my new reproduction artillery holster/stock on the Firing Line and one of the Admins there raised a question about its legality attached to an Artillery Luger, saying that there was a period of time where the BATF considered it to be legal as-is, but that it has again reverted to SBR status in need of registration.

I have seen the 1981 letter implying legality of a repro holster without a stamp, but supposedly there is a newer letter leaning the other way. Does anyone have evidence for a definitive ruling on this that applies today?

I was under the impression that a stocked Artillery Luger was already on the exemption list. Has this changed?

No, I would have to see that in black & White. It would be all over the internet if it were true.

Here's the 1981 letter "allowing" repro stocks for Lugers and Hi-Powers -

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

Here's a 1999 letter seemingly disallowing repro stocks, but only as applied to Canadian Inglis No. 1 Chinese contract and Browning Hi Power 9mm pistols with a "CH" prefix serial -

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

No mention of Lugers or Broomhandles.

I haven't been able to find anything newer. Sorry, don't mean to raise a ruckus, but the admin at The Firing Line raising the question is someone who has credibility on legal matters.

but the admin at The Firing Line raising the question is someone who has credibility on legal matters.I envy your trust..but he has to have something to back it up. Not just a raised question or belief. Chapter & verse so to speak, volume & page number.

Another thought..if the ATF had changed this ruling..it surely would have alerted many thousands of FFL's of such an important change. Dealers as well as C&R holders. Because it would make IMMEDIATE felons out of THOUSANDS of repro stock owners.

The letters are narrowly written and generally apply only to the question at hand/addressed by the letter. Thus, the second letter (i.e., the one referencing the CH-marked Inglis pistols/stocks) applies only to those guns. That letter does not mention Lugers thus it does not apply to Lugers. It answers only the question that was asked: "...legality of [...] a replica shoulder stock for [a] Canadian Inglis No. 1 Chinese contract Browning Hi Power."

One other tidbit relating to the narrow decisions in these types of BATF letters is that the general rule is they're really only legally applicable to the addressee, and thus should not be construed to automatically apply across the board to everyone. Could your lawyer legally (and successfully) use someone else's BATF letter to keep you out of hot water? Most likely, but not definitively.

an easy way to answer the question is to ask it.......

If a person has a pistol and an attachable shoulder stock, does this constitute possession of an NFA firearm?

Yes, unless the barrel of the pistol is at least 16 inches in length (and the overall length of the firearm with stock attached is at least 26 inches). However, certain stocked handguns, such as original semiautomatic Mauser “Broomhandles” and Lugers, have been removed from the purview of the NFA as collectors’ items.

[26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-p...possession-nfa

Thanks Allen, that's the extent to which it's spelled out in the rules (not counting the opinion letters). The question is specifically directed to cases of holsters/stocks which are faithful reproductions of the originals, which is what the first opinion letter was intended to address. As Jerry mentioned, a lot of those repros have been sold over the decades, and one wonders (at least I do) how many of those owners have or have not applied and paid for their NFA stamp.

The exemptions are not "just" in a letter, but also in the regs.; I'm pretty sure they are referenced in a sticky here or on the other luger forum.

I found my copy when doing some file re-organizing just this week.

Repro stocks that are substantially the same as the originals are legal, but with the caviat that navy-navy, artillery-artillery, ideal-American eagles, commercial-commercial- etc.

You can find it on line, and that is the best way to satisfy yourself and shut up the mis-informed.

Don't take my word for it, do your home work.

The operative part of the sentence as I read it is "However, certain stocked handguns, such as original semiautomatic Mauser “Broomhandles” and Lugers, have been removed from the purview of the NFA as collectors’ items."

The pistols themselves, Broomhandles , Luger Navies & Artillery Lugers have been removed from Purview of the NFA regs..... the guns themselves so attaching a faithful repro stock or original no longer is an issue as it is outside the NFA regs..... so as long as the gun is on the list of arms listed there is no issue ... I have a Beretta M1918-30 carbine it has a barrel less than 16" but ATF says it has historical interest so it is not a SBR.... it's all in how the ATF lawyers word it....

Respectfully none those pistols were never NFA items in and of themselves. It's only when a stock is attached that they meet the definition of an SBR. Short-barrelled rifles and shotguns are defined by their features. No features = not NFA.

Took my mismatched Artillery with repro stock/holster to the range today. I really like the attitude of the Range Officer there... I started to explain before I put it together how it was a legal combo and he just shrugged and said "Hey, it's you going to prison, not me". :)

Later, the Head Range Officer / Range Manager came out and was looking at the rig. I was out fixing my target and I heard him talking to the other guy about legality, so I walked back in and showed him a copy of the current ATF ruling as well as the 1981 letter regarding reproduction stocks. He was impressed that I had the information printed out and ready to show/discuss. All three of the ROs there today liked the rig immensely and thought it was cool that I would bring it out to shoot.