LugerForum Discussion Forums - View Single Post

John Sabato · 04-05-2002, 12:21 PM

I can see a violation by possession of both pieces of the stock, but not one or the other, as long as you owned an eligible pistol. I can't see how possession of just a stock iron and an ineligible Luger could constitute contructive posssession of a SBR... I would really like to read more about this. any pointers to cases would be appreciated.

I think that there are so many ironless shoulder stocks (luger, c96, and HP) because the nasty iron was removed and placed in safe custody before these fine weapons were removed from the purview of the NFA by ATF when then classified them as C&R... The parts were never rejoined because some potential buyers were intimidated by the ATF veiwpoint.

I don't advocate breaking the law, I just wish we could pin this down without getting a "reading" from ATF that would probably be considered worthless if someone had to go to court over an unintentional violation of this wierd regulation.

regards,

John Sabato

04-05-2002, 12:21 PM	#19
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,155 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,308 Times in 1,098 Posts	Tom can you cite a court case that I could read. I can see a violation by possession of both pieces of the stock, but not one or the other, as long as you owned an eligible pistol. I can't see how possession of just a stock iron and an ineligible Luger could constitute contructive posssession of a SBR... I would really like to read more about this. any pointers to cases would be appreciated. I think that there are so many ironless shoulder stocks (luger, c96, and HP) because the nasty iron was removed and placed in safe custody before these fine weapons were removed from the purview of the NFA by ATF when then classified them as C&R... The parts were never rejoined because some potential buyers were intimidated by the ATF veiwpoint. I don't advocate breaking the law, I just wish we could pin this down without getting a "reading" from ATF that would probably be considered worthless if someone had to go to court over an unintentional violation of this wierd regulation. regards, John Sabato