Jump to content


Photo

ATF asks for proof the POC M6 is C&R

Ingram M6 Police Ordnance Com

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 fifthmdec

fifthmdec

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NV

Posted 16 July 2019 - 10:48 AM

Just received a Form 4 back accompanied by a letter stating that our Ingram M6 is not a C&R. That is according to their information. Years ago, we fid a FOIA request on SN 261, our M6. It was originally entered in the NFRTR in February of 1952 on a Form 2 several other MGs. This was not uncommon for a C2 to list several at a time. Then a few months later a corrected Form 2 was submitted and approved.

Both Form 2s had SN261 listed as most of the other information was redacted as it usually is. In fact, the original FOIA request only resulted in the first Form 2. So we appealed and received the rest. SN261 eventually transferred to a CA SO in the 1950s and was transferred to a C3 in the 1980s.

The current transferee is a C &R license holder. The ATF also asked us to give them more information that this POC M6 is a C&R. All that I can think of is to send them photos of the weapon, concentrating on the nomenclature on the receiver and sending in the copies of the Form 2s that I have. I figure that whatever information as to the manufacturer is listed on their screen when pulling up information.

Since we us the EForm data base, the manufacturer listed is as a Form 2 registration. I added additional information to the Form 4, describing the nomenclature and such on the weapon. I understand that the record keeping at the NFA, especially in the NFRTR is not 100% accurate. How knows what prompted that Form 2 registration would be listed on our Form 3 and the NFA cannot verify that POC is the manufacturer or it was not originally entered as such in 1952.

I currently have the Mac Man book as I have used that as a reference in locating date ranges for the manufacturing of the Ingram Model 6 45acp Police Ordnance Company of Los Angeles CA.

Attached Files


  • 0

#2 hawksnest

hawksnest

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1097 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:central Ohio
  • Interests:Class III weapons

Posted 16 July 2019 - 11:59 AM

Bureaucracy at it's best.


  • 0

#3 TSMGguy

TSMGguy

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West of the Pecos, Texas
  • Interests:Motorcycles, old airplanes, and guns.

Posted 16 July 2019 - 01:21 PM

Intersting. The Ingram M6 is specifically mentioned as C&R in Section IV, page 48 of ATF Publication 5300.11. 


Edited by TSMGguy, 16 July 2019 - 01:26 PM.

  • 0

#4 johnsonlmg41

johnsonlmg41

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 844 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 July 2019 - 09:03 PM

The best bet is to cite the book, then ask that a supervisor get involved, since you examiner clearly has competency issues.  I would not suggest sending photos unless requested to do so. 


  • 0

#5 Grasshopper

Grasshopper

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 268 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sunny Florida
  • Interests:Engines, Tractors(old, rusty is better), mechanisms, and the occasional MG

Posted 16 July 2019 - 09:05 PM

Hi,

 

Since the M6 has been in the registry over 50 years, it may be worth pointing out to BATF that it makes no difference who manufactured the firearm as it far exceeds the age requirement of a C&R firearm.

 

This may not float well with a new owner if POC is not listed as the manufacturer.  It wouldn't be the first registration to be in error.

 

Good Luck,

 

Grasshopper


  • 0

#6 Black River Militaria CII

Black River Militaria CII

    Industry Expert

  • Regular Group
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 July 2019 - 09:55 PM

Examiners have a hard time understanding that all F2s are not post-May samples. An annoying percentage of the F2s I submit for reactivations come back claiming that the gun is a restricted sales sample. Godamighty......
  • 0

#7 fifthmdec

fifthmdec

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NV

Posted 20 July 2019 - 10:18 AM

Bob,

I’ve had the same experience with a few reactivations on Form 2s. Anyway, my response and supported evidence went out last Wednesday. We’ll see...
  • 0

#8 rsideout

rsideout

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 7 posts

Posted 26 September 2019 - 07:17 PM

My Model 6 (Police) was just approved last week.  Transferred to my 03FFL (C&R) with no issues. 


  • 0

#9 fifthmdec

fifthmdec

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NV

Posted 04 October 2019 - 05:05 PM

The issues we face, is that the Ingram is listed as a Form2 registration in their data base. Which is reflected in our eForms account. Our FOIA request paperwork shows that it was manufactured in 1952. There were several others on the same Form 2. The problem lies with those on the NFA branch end.

For whatever reasons it has not yet been resolved. They have enough proof from our end to make the correct entry.

As another response earlier in this thread, stated that he has had experience with some examiners that look at Form 2s from 07/02 as a post sample and not a reactivating of a dewat. Again, it is possible that whomever is responsible for the kick back. Does not understand that a Form 2 registration is part of the manufacturerimg process, regardless of date.

The original Form 2 information should be available to the NFA as we have a RIP copy.

Seems like an easy fix. Do this long enough and this kind of situation will pop up.

Obviously, your transfer went flawlessly as the information reflects the true status of this weapon.

Edited by fifthmdec, 05 October 2019 - 11:54 AM.

  • 0

#10 fifthmdec

fifthmdec

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NV

Posted 06 December 2019 - 09:56 PM

Finally, the correction was made on their end.

A C&R as it always was.

A FOIA request and answer can come in handy.

Took 19 months from submission to approval.

The buyer was delighted to say the least...
  • 0