philasteen Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 (edited) See link in next reply below Edited March 23, 2006 by philasteen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Jr Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 LINK TO PDF FILE http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Something is definitely up. The first reply was certainly not a mistake. Someone wants to change something on that the original ruling. Maybe it will be something positive.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 WTF?! US---> http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/buttkick.gif Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hammer Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Ha, ya'll thought I had smoked some wacky tobaccee in the previous thread on this subject. This letter confirms that ONLY W.H. produced guns were being considered accepted as C&R's. But since the original letter was not thought out and too simplisticly stated and not addressing all other possible Thompson configurations, maybe it's a good thing ATF&E is going to take there time and maybe tell us EXACTLY what form(s) of additional Thompsons will now be considered C&R's, if any. Ahh...our wonderful govenment at work, wouldn't you just like to strangle the bastards! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/nutkick.gif Mike Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Mike, That is what I too perceive may be happening. I thought the original request from TCA was for just what we term the West Hurley Auto-Ordnance Thompson’s. I assume (but do not know for a fact) that TCA wanted to keep the initial request simple and not introduce all the Thompson variations known by Thompson collectors into the decision making process. It sounded like a pretty good strategy in that you could always build on any success for the next request. Only time will tell what is actually going on. I think it positive BATFE has actually tried to telephone the President of TCA on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v188 Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 I'm curious if anyone has a copy of the letter that TCA sent initially? I'm thinking about writing to ATF concerning a rifle I have, that had only a couple hundred made, and I'd like to see if I can get it declared C&R. I just want to plagarize the best parts and apply them to my MG. Back on point, I've got a reweld (Non C&R) Savage (sitting at PK"s right now) and I sure hope that ATF doesn't change the C&R definition from their original letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blanksguy Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 I don't believe that this is an individual's request for the change back.......what I think is happening is that BATF (Tech. Branch) is being told to change it back because it kind of "opens" up the requests for a lot of other weapons in the newer areas of Class-III weapons. ....the end-result is that BATF does not want to receive....and have to answer to why "ALL legally registered Class III Weapons made before the 1986 MG-Ban cannot be C&R due to the increases in their value". Just my observations from trying to get "origainal" AK-47 series rifles added into the C&R List.........and before I hear it.....the C&R List gives the requirements/procedures for a person(s) to "request-a-Determination to be made to add a weapon/series of weapons into the C&R List"......it does not say that weapons 50-years or older are "automatically-added".......or the C&R List would already have them listed by date = "Made prior to ______"...along with a long list of other weapons. Regards, RichardS. Blanksguy2001@chartermi.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 QUOTE (Blanksguy @ Mar 23 2006, 10:20 AM) it does not say that weapons 50-years or older are "automatically-added".......or the C&R List would already have them listed by date = "Made prior to ______"...along with a long list of other weapons. Regards, RichardS. Blanksguy2001@chartermi.net Blanksguy I was aways under the impression that if you could prove a gun was manufactured more than 50 yrs ago, it is a C&R whether it's on the list or not. Are you suggesting this is not the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Why is Carol's first name blacked out? Is it also the serial number of her WH 28? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blanksguy Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Lancer, Questions for you sir..... 1: Whay are military Bolt-Action Rifles listed in the other sections along with the other 100 or so weapons that were made over 50-years ago?...and many weapons listed as "made prior to 1946"? 2: Why does the NFA Brance use the current C&R List (with "up-dates") to help approve Transfers to people with C&R Licenses? The "at least 50-years-old" applies to a "criteria" that allows for the submission of the request for Determination for C&R Status".....not a "blanket-approval" for anything over 50-years old. Such as the criteria to be met during submission of "value"....and/or "rarity",.....and/or "association to a Historic-person or Historic-battle"...............and/or the "manufactured at least 50-years prior to current date". Not to try to egg you on..........but can you tell me where (page) in the C&R List you are reading that "Any weapon manufactured at least 50-years ago/50-years old is automatically added to the C&R List".....or "is automatically determined to be a Curio & Relic". Please educate me so that I will be better able to deal with BATF Tech. Branch during my submissions. Regards, RichardS. Blanksguy2001@chartermi.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill in VA Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Well, this isn't a scan of pdf copy of the letter, but rather a transcription, but here's something: http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/gorge/46...3/cnrover50.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Blanksguy Who knows "why" the ATF does a lot of the things they do? Bill in VA's link seems to shed alot of light on the subject and it's good-n-nuff for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimFromFL Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Mar 23 2006, 10:53 AM) If it's 50 years and one day old, it's C&R. Period. I thought this was just one part. The other part is that it has been deemed to have played an important role in history and not just age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt3_guns Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 For V188 -- send me an email and I'll ask Carol to get you a copy of her request to BATFE. For TD – You are correct; Carol didn’t have enough information available to ask about other variations. I’m sure that she would have included them in the request if she had reliable production quantities. If they are available, let her know and she’ll use that information in her discussions with Mr. Nixon. All - Carol did get to speak to Mr. Nixon the other day. The BATFE told Carol that the reason for their action was that letter had not been "Fully Vetted". Due to some mix-up, the BATFE legal office didn't complete their review of the document before Mr. Nixon signed it and sent it out. Mr. Nixon told her that he anticipated it would take ~60 days for the review and so Carol is expecting a reply in May. Carol teaches middle school and this is a busy time for her with grades and the annual 8th grade Shakespeare play. She has called Mr. Nixon with a follow-up question or two but since their first conversation; they haven't been able to connect. OK those are all the facts -- the following is my personal opinion only: The BATFE would not have drafted a letter approving this request unless they planned to do just that. So unless this opens the door to all pre-86 MGs as C&R guns I expect that the final result will be an affirmative answer. They may well change the reason for saying yes but the end result will be the same. I also don’t think that they will change from all TSMG to just West Hurley M28s – Again this part is my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45fan Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 A firearm is a C&R if 50 plus years old. >>>>>> As set out in the regulations (27 CFR 178.11), curios or relics include firearms which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons. To be recognized as curios or relics, firearms must fall within one of the following categories: 1.) Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof; 2.) Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, State, or Federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and 3.) Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event. Proof of qualification of a particular firearm under this category may be established by evidence of present value and evidence that like firearms are not available except as collector's items, or that the value of like firearms available in ordinary commercial channels is substantially less. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/curios/intro.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p51 Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 I wonder if I’m the only here who noticed the underlying concern that if something was signed off by ATF for any reason, that it couldn’t be revoked later on like this was? I’ve printed this letter out and will show it to the next knucklehead who tells me they have a ATF letter on something, as if it’s engraved in stone for all eternity… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hammer Posted March 2, 2007 Report Share Posted March 2, 2007 It's been a year since BATF has recended the approval of the '28 West Hurley as a C&R gun and I have heard nothing new on this front. While transfers may be handled faster nowadays, (and it was long overdue to see that happining), It seems they have little interest or focus on resolving this and other legal issues. I can apprecite a lack of manpower, (less lawyers is always a good idea), but come on, they could at least explain their actions and tell us what in the name of JC is happing here? The woman who sumitted this request was told 60 days, it's now been a year, has anyone heard anything or perhaps talked with higher ups at ATF? Mike Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecondAmend Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 It would be my guess the ATF has probably been pretty busy of late with the Akins Accelerator, as well as evaluating the numerous M11/9 and M16 prototypes that are in the works. As the WH 28 is transferable as is, there may be low priority to the C&R request evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inertord Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 I am wondering out of the blue if The ATF may have just closed this issue and considers the last ruling as final, until further action is officially requested of them? Would someone originally involved need to make an official appeal to their last reversal to gain further consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt3_guns Posted March 3, 2007 Report Share Posted March 3, 2007 I did speak to the BAFTE about this in the last 30 days and the FTB has not been idle. They have been working closely with the legal office on the review. The legal office is short staffed and things are taking longer than planned. Bill Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Hammer Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 Mr. Nixon..........we are still waiting. Some of us may not live long enough to ever hear the next word on this! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/soapbox.gif Mike Hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bt3_guns Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 I spoke to BATFE about 30 days ago and there wasn’t any new news. I typically call every 90 days to touch base and see if there is any news. The last report was that the legal office had not made a determination yet. Carol or I will call back in late June to inquire again. I thought that I had posted this. I guess I got sidetracked - my apologies. Bill Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now