Question about C&R for 1918 BAR

[Ozark]

I have a simple question that I'm hoping one of you can help me with.  At the risk of complete embarrassment, here it is....

1) What classifies a 1918 BAR as C&R - why would some be and some are not?   I understand the BATF rules just don't understand why there would be non- C&R BAR's?

2) on Machine Gun Price Guide there is a big difference in value between a C&R BAR and a non-C&R BAR?  Why drives that difference.  

I understand why they would vary in value due to manufacturer, condition, etc...  Just don't get why / if the C&R aspect is a value component on its own.

Appreciate you guys making me smarter.

Ozark

[mike todd]

I am sure we will see something different than what I have to say come up, but its actually QUITE SIMPLE ! in order to qualify as a TRUE C+R NFA WEAPON. it had to be in the system and registered B-4 the 1968 gun control act took effect in spring of 1970 and be an ORIGINAL example built by one of the original contractors. both LIVE examples and properly registered dewats qualify. of course a "blanket approval" would require it also be 50 years old at the time of transfer. but individual C+R STATUS is available and possible for any weapon if its rarity/ design/ or history adds more value that exceeds its value as a weapon. if a licensed manufacturer did the work / entered it in his book and registered his name under manufacturer the status is voided even if all he did was add new parts putting it back COMPLETLY original. TODAY you can take a registered DEWAT, use a form 1 , make it live and it will still qualify as a C+R. some shops were misinformed and thought the law required them to mark any rewat with their name and enter it in their books. THAT MAKES IT A NEW BUILD and NOT A REPAIR. IF DONE AS A REPAIR, NO MARKINGS ARE NEEDED. another VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE that concerns ALL C+R's. "THEY MUST BE COMPLETLY ORIGINAL AND UNCHANGED AS MANUFACTURED! I know of more than one COLT 11mm VICKERS sideplate built into ground guns that were wrongfully BOUGHT and TRANSFERED as C+R's when if the actual facts were known to the agency it would not have happened! a "sporterized" 1903 springfield made in 1929 IS NOT A LEGITIMATE C+R! unless requested individually for that exact example by the owner 

ALL THOMPSON MACHINE GUNS  any model no matter when built or by who are now C+R's. ATF tells me as of JAN 1 ,2018 that also applies to ALL SELECT FIRE FAL's and they transferred a SAR-48 on one.  I hope that cleared it up for you a bit, trying to use the right words in the right place without stepping on my tongue is hard for this old man at times. cheers MIKE 

[Ozark]

Mike,

Thanks for the insight - mine is a re-arsenaled NESA that I bought from a reputable dealer as a C&R several years ago. 

I've wondered about it for a while - thanks for the clarification.    

Kerry

[BRMCII]

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…...

 

 

[mike todd]

BRMC, I am a little confused by your post because I have never seen a registered dewat except on a form 4 with a $5.00 tax paid and cant address anything I have not seen. if your explanation concerns those, then your very "detailed" explanation is not correct . don't feel alone, there are many others that have came to the same conclusion. please don't take my response personal, you must interpret things as you see them using the information you have. I have asked this question SEVERAL times both in person, face to face and by letter and the answer has ALWAYS been the same.  it is much like I have seen many times in the past and another example of how many legit C+R's are needlessly lost forever. first problem. when a question is asked of ATF they MUST answer it as it is asked and too many folks , "lump" many issues in one sentence trying to get an answer. over the years, I have reactivated countless reg'td dewats using a form 1 and never has the weapon lost its status. one is not "making" they are "repairing" and NO MARKINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED PERIOD ! and the original manufacture remains as a matter of record. I owned a MP-34 that had been transferred as a C+R 3 times since 1997 it had no other markings anywhere on the weapon other than applied when made in the 30's or 40's. in 2014 I sold it and the buyer used a C+R on the new forms. in apprx 3 months it was returned "DENIED" and I had to get on the phone with the ATF tech branch for answers. they explained that in 1983 it had been "RE MANUFACTURED" and the new forms had the company name, rather than "AUSTRIA" as the manufacturer so it was no longer a C+R. on a later application, the new company marks were dropped and AUSTRIA reappeared for origin. they stated that was a "clerical error" but would not disclose who or what the company name was, just that the status was modern and that's final. I have never been a manufacturer , but know one can take on a job for "repair" , or enter a job on the books to "make" both would require a different end result.  in 2018 I did 2 examples,both on tax paid form 4's of $5.00 to me. pics were sent in with the form 1 applications. and "restore to live function" the work was completed, no additional markings applied after the approval was received. another example was filed JAN-2019 and the approved form 1 processed in a record for me of 78 days. the piece has already been finished and again no additional markings applied. as it stands I can only go by example and when I see it done and the status lost, I will make an attempt to find out why in order to help others avoid the mistake.