BRMCII

Would you please post references to actual court cases of prosecutions by ATF for incomplete or illegal destruction of an MG receiver by an individual. TIA.

RAMO built M2HB.50BMG; exc/new condition; 99% park; exc. tripod, T+E; some spares inc. and some spares at extra cost $30k/offers (2) 1928 COLT ARG. CONTRACT WC BMG kits; marked 7.65mm; optic mount; complete; not matching numbers; very good condition; excellent bores; excellent jackets; $2000 each/offers (2) 1917A1 DLO registered side plates; ready to build; $13.5k each/offers (1) Reising; .45; C+R; Numrich Military build on commercial numbered receiver; excellent wood; all correct military parts; 99% park; mag; tested $5200 Further info and pics on request: MGs out on taxed F4s from NFA savvy owner; buyer pays tax, SH+I

Max: need your e-mail address. Post me to bmg17a1@gmail.com

Well, saint's be praised, your queries have been productive! I neglected to look at the muzzle end of the barrel on the Marlin and there're all the correct stamps with date of 7 18, etc, so this Marlin seems to have taken the same or similar path to your Marlin.

You again? Don't you have some laundry or bowling to do? Nobody asked for cash at the door…. I did add a few things to the BAR listing above. The barrel is a 1918 configuration with the short breech profile so appears to me to be original. I don't know what date the markings were applied but assume for WWII Lend-Lease. Marlin first began BAR production for sales to Britain but I don't know how these barrels were marked from the factory at that time if marked at all. What do you have on this question?

RAMO built M2HB.50BMG; exc/new condition; 99% park; exc. tripod, T+E; some spares inc. and some spares at extra cost $30k/offers (2) 1928 COLT ARG. CONTRACT WC BMG kits; marked 7.65mm; optic mount; complete; not matching numbers; very good condition; excellent bores; excellent jackets; $2000 each/offers (2) 1917A1 DLO registered side plates; ready to build; $13.5k each/offers (1) Reising; .45; C+R; Numrich Military build on commercial numbered receiver; excellent wood; all correct military parts; 99% park; mag; tested $5200 each Further info and pics on request: MGs out on taxed F4s from NFA savvy owner; buyer pays tax, SH+I

Couple of things to address in the above post. Reactivation of a registered DEWAT, whether by an individual through form 1 application, or through Form 2 by an 07/02 licensee is defined by ATF as "making" an MG, and by ATF's definition that is a legal form of "manufacturing" and is NOT "repair' and ATF regs require any firearm that is "manufactured" to be marked with the name and address of the person or licensee doing the actual reactivation. So, any processed reactivation requires marking of the receiver. About fifteen or more years ago, I had a number of dialogues with the head of FTB and asked for the removal of the definition of a reactivation as manufacturing so the MG did not require marking. In my fire he marking is erroneous and defaces the MG. The MG was already registered as "manufactured" by the original arsenal, factory, etc and returning it to live fire does not constitute manufacturing by any logical assessment. ATF's response was that any work done to significantly alter the receiver of an MG was considered 'manufacturing". OK, whatever, no change was ever made. Anyway, reactivation is NOT repair. Now, the proper paper trail for a registered DEWAT to be reactivated is use of a form 5, tax exempt transfer to an 07/02. He does the reactivation, notifies ATF using a form 2 that the MG has been reactivated and then returns the gun by taxed form 4 directly to its owner. This is where the tax is paid for the "making" or change of status from DEWAT to live MG. for an individual to do the reactivation, he should have received the registered DEWAT by form 5, tax exempt. Then he files a taxed, form 1 to reactivate the MG and when he receives the approved form1, he can do the work He is required to mark the MG. The form 1 is his registration of the gun. Again, the ID of the manufacturer remains the same as noted on the original registration in the NFRTR. An exception to the above are registered DEWATs that have transferred by taxed form 4s. These MGs can reactivated without any further paperwork because they are already considered "live" MGs, having had the tax paid for the transfer. The registered "manufacturer/importer" ID of a registered DEWAT listed on the original registration form NEVER changes, unless it is clearly incorrect and a correction can be done by the registrant with a letter to ATF requesting that the correct ID be included with that serial number in the NFRTR. An 07/02 who reactivates a registered DEWAT does NOT enter his name as the "manufacturer" of the reactivation. He files a form 2 and checks the 'reactivation" box. The ID of the manufacturer/importer does not change from that of the original registration when reactivated. There is no requirement in the C+R regulations of the '68 GCA that a C+R listed MG to be in its original factory configuration. That is only stipulated for IMPORT of C+R title I firearms. MGs have been prohibited for importation for private transfer and possession since the end of the '68 Amnesty. The C+R status of some MGs is in a grey area since they have been materially altered. An example is a 1910 Russian Maxim kit built into a transferable example by installing the registered side plate of the German MG08 Maxim. Can just a side plate be transferred as a C+R firearm? Under NFA law, the registered component of an MG is the "machine gun", so following that logic then just a sideplate can transfer as a C+R if it came from a C+R MG. However the MG08 no longer exists, which was the C+R MG. The registration lists the MG as an MG08 but it is no longer an MG08. In my view, having built many of these hybrid, transferable Maxims, is that the gun should not transfer as C+R because it is materially no longer an MG08, and I have "manufactured' it as a 1910, so the fifty year old rule from date of manufacture applies. However, there is no record of the date of my re-manufacture, so when does the counting begin to fifty years from date of mfg? This is counting angels on the head of a pin. Some of my customers have wanted to ask ATF to change the registration ID of the gun to 1910 Maxim, but that creates the false impression that the gun was originally registered as a 1910 but it was not. IMO, it is best that these guns not retain their C+R status so as to keep the provenance clear. The example noted in the above post of the use of registered aircraft Vickers side plates to build ground guns suffers form the same issues. Since ATF never sees the hardware to understand that an MG has been materially altered and refers to the original registration to vet a transfer, such hybrids will sail through a transfer without an issue. Hope this helps…...

Yes it is…...

The Marlin has Lend Lease certification stamps on the breech end of the barrel, usual stuff, nitro, etc. Only other mark is the usual military 'P'. Only stamps on the barrel.

LOL! You guys are headed in the same direction, on the same highway with no exits to the same place, don't forget that! Anyway I got more MGs than both of ya because I'm over 65……ha ha! BTW. it's posted other place too. So, why the quibbling? Buy the damn gun. For the next 24 hours, it is $30k. (10:20pM Wed. 3/27 until 10:20 Thur. 3/28))

Marlin BAR; .30-06; C+R; excellent condition; complete, correct; 98% original bluing; worn rifling; bright bore, no corrosion; stock appears to have been lightly sanded; fore stock excellent and Winchester marked; 16 mags; small parts; tool; $30k offers Brokered from savvy NFA C+R FFL; out on taxed F4; buyer pays tax, SH+I

Looking for the sheet metal cradle adaptor (pictured holding LMG) to mount the Springfield or Colt Bent-Mercie LMG to 1915 Springfield or Vickers MKIV tripods and others. any condition, parts etc.

Mike Todd writes: "YOU ARE TOTALLY CORRECT, "SLOTTED BOLTS ARE MG'S BY THEMSELVES" . The ONLY slotted, UZI SMG bolt that is legal for an owner to possess is the unmarried bolt that was in his registered, unmodified receiver A or B UZI. It is illegal for an owner to make his own slotted SMG bolt unless he is an 07/02 and it will be a post-May sample. If a part requires registration it cannot legally be possessed without registration. A part that is controlled by registration cannot be legally possessed in a finished state as a "spare" part even for an owner with a registered example of the MG for which it is used. Since you are making the claim that an owner of an early registered unmodified receiver A/B UZI with a slotted SMG bolt is exempted from the registration requirement for possession of another slotted bolt for his gun, please post documentation of this claim from ATF/NFA. And also that it is legal for him to make such a bolt. I remember when the ATF made the designation and over all these years I have never heard of any "grandfather" option, so I think documentation is a fair request. No? What am I missing here? FWIW

DEWATs that do not transfer because the manufacturer/importer is not "correct" can easily be contested as long as the original registration pre-dates the end of the '68 Amnesty or the MG can be confirmed to have been manufactured 50 years ago or more. Might take some leverage against ATF but it has been and can be done. The ones that I have had with incorrect maker ID have generated 'error letters" and I have put returned the info with whatever ATF required. The new registrant can amend the NFRTR form 4 of the serial with a letter once the gun is in his name and, as the registrant, he can get date and name of original registrant's name from ATF. ATF will not do and major revisions, serial etc, etc during a transfer process.The transfers I had with the error letters have not been denied for incorrect ID once I have responded to ATF's satisfaction. However, if the date of original registration does not qualify the MG as C+R, even though it may once have transferred on an FFL03, then it will no longer transfer C+R under the recent implementation of the vetting of all transfers against the original registration info. Mike, if you have MGs that transferred as C+R but will no longer, do an FOIA search for the date of the original registration. My money is on the original registration occurring after the '68 Amnesty. See below. There are an indeterminate number of MGs registered as alleged registered D#WATs which were "reactivated" on F2s by FFLs after the '68 amnesty, but were actually unregistered MGs illegally processed as 'reactivated' merely by filling out and submitting the F2 with that status and ATF was none the wiser. ATF never supervised any operations of that sort or vetted transfers to confirm date of registrations for F2s, dF1s, FFL03 transfers, so it was easy to get away with. When MGs were not worth much, the extra value of and alleged C+R MG made a difference. Plus the CIIs didn't need any skills at cutting and welding the receivers, or making new ones. I've seen quite a few of these, and they actually are of interest to a small subset of collectors who seek them out because they are compromised and cheaper. This subset of Mgs also includes unregistered MG that were never cut and welded but just registered as manufactured on an F2. The FFLs who did this put their correct ID in the box so with a minor inspection it is easy to tell if the gun was not correctly cut and welded. Mike, you would be wise to get the matter of the date of the original registration of those guns verified. If they are actually correctly registered prior to the end of the '68 amnesty, then you can petition ATF to annotate the NFRTR that they are legitimately C+R. FWIW