So after scouring the internet trying to find out if a reproduction stock is legal for a C96 and finding a range of answers from totally legal to completely illegal, I sent the ATF an email and was surprised when I got a response from them yesterday.

While this settles my question, I thought I would post what they sent me out here on the interwebs just in case someone else needs the information as well. Below is their response:

------------------

Mr. Mitchell,

This is in reference to your email (below) in which you inquire about the legality of affixing an original or reproduction shoulder stock to a Model 1896 broomhandle semiautomatic pistol. Your email was forwarded to the Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) for reply.

A rifle having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length is a firearm as that term is defined in Title 26, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 53, § 5845(a)(3). If a pistol were possessed with an attachable shoulder stock, the combination would be a firearm as defined. Weapons of this type are subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

However, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has previously determined that by reason of the date of their manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics, the following when possessed with an attachable shoulder stock, are primarily collector’s items and are not likely to be used as weapons, and, therefore, are excluded from the provisions of the NFA:

Mauser, model 1896 semiautomatic pistol accompanied by original German mfd. detachable wooden holster/shoulder stocks, all semiautomatic German mfd. variations produced prior to 1940, any caliber.

Further, ATF has determined that such firearms are curios or relics as defined in Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 178, § 178.11 and, therefore, would still be subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

ATF has previously determined that Mauser Model 1896 pistols with reproduction stocks, which duplicate or closely approximate the originals, have also been removed from the provisions of the NFA. Copies of the Mauser pistol using frames of recent manufacture, with shoulder stocks, are still subject to the NFA.

If an individual possesses a pistol and shoulder stock combination that has not been removed from the provisions of the NFA, the combination would constitute a firearm subject to the provisions of the NFA. The fact that the stock was not attached to the pistol would have no bearing on this classification.

We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us.

Firearms Technology Branch

------------------

Thought it was pretty cool that they took the time to send a thorough response. Not so cool when I forgot I had emailed them and I checked my phone in class to see I had an email from the ATF and immediately started looking for black helicopters to come snatch me.

Thanks for posting. I now know where my C-96 stands, until they change it again. Ivan

Thats great info but, cant they just say yes or no?

Can you post the email address and date time of the ATF response. I've seen and gotten lots of conflicting guidance and this is the closest I've seen to something official and specific. I'll print it and put it with my gun in case questions are ever asked.

Great post. Great effort.

Many thanks,
Rosser

I'm with The Ringo Kid: can't they just say yes or no!?

Well, that saves me some money! Now I no longer have to look for repros for my C96's. (I can't afford originals....)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

The answer is ketchup!

So is a repro stock/holster ok or not? Because I'm either going to be glad I passed on a deal or start crying

On second reading, I believe that original C96 Mausers with repro stocks are OK per the following:
I guess I'm back on the hook......

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

This is how I read it. A reproduction C96 with an original or reproduction stock IS subject to the NFA. An original C96 with an original or reproduction stick is NOT subject to the NFA.

Until, as Ivan the Butcher says, they change the ruling.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Will somebody please explain to me why I can't do a copy & paste of the above letter for my files so I can print it? All I get are some dotted lines.
Jim

PM me with an email address and I'll send you a Word document with the letter.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

I thought they DID say yes or no.

They said YES, original broomhandles with original holster/stocks were no longer NFA (paragraphs 3 and 4).

They said YES, original broomhandles with repro holster/stocks that match originals in size and shape were also no longer NFA (paragraph 6).

And they said NO, new-made broomhandles (is anybody making broomhandles, now, or are they covering their bases/making a preemptive strike?), with holster/stocks, are considered NFA SBR (also paragraph 6).

What's the confusion?

__________________
I always take precautions

AFAIK nobody is making repro 96's.
I wonder if this ruling covers the Spanish and Chinese copies?
(Even though they are not "replicas" and are even scarcer, maybe they are what they are referring to.....)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

Some of us don't speak that ATF language and need an interpreter , I'm not sure what the correct answer is on the OP's question.
That ATF reply is just as clear as muddy water to me.

Whoa! Am I the only one who spotted this scary part?

This makes it sound like owning an AR15 pistol and a separate unattached AR15 shoulder stock makes it subject to NFA SBR provisions.

Scary.

From the original letter:

If I recall correctly, Federal Ordnance put together some Broomhandles back in the '80s using surplus parts and newly manufactured receivers. Those would not be legal with a shoulder stock, but I don't think they were slotted for one anyway.

That's called "constructive possession". Ain't nothing new.

If you have a Remington 870, with a full-length barrel, but you also own a 14" 870 barrel, you have a SBS. Does not have to be together. If you have both pieces, you have an SBS.

So yes, if you have an AR15 pistol, and you have an unattached shoulder stock, you have an SBR. UNLESS you also have a normal AR15 rifle. Then the unattached rifle stock is considered to be part of the rifle - spare parts.

But if you don't have a rifle, you have no need for a rifle stock, and the only reason for having a rifle stock would be to make that, illegal, SBR. So sayeth ATF thinking.

That's why, if you apply to make an SBR or SBS, you wait until you get the paper back before taking a hacksaw to the barrel.

__________________
I always take precautions

If the shoulder stock can be attached to the pistol, yes it is illegal to possess both.

There was a ruling, several years ago, on the T/C Contender when T/C brought out the carbine barrels and the shoulder stock. The ATF ruled that possession of both was an NFA violation. Federal court ruled that in that case possession of both was not illegal but mating a pistol length barrel to a shoulder stock was. Similarly when the manufacturers started producing inline muzzle loaders on frames with interchangeable barrels for cartridges those muzzle loaders were and are subject to a NICS check.

As has been said before: let the government get involved and confusion reigns supreme. Keep in mind the most feared words in the English language: "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."

__________________
Quando omni flunkus moritati.

Scary. Two separate, completely legal items. Own them both, even if you never put them together, it's against the law.

What's next, owning both dirt and having poppyseeds in your kitchen will make you a "constructive opiate farmer."

So, where will the 1911 that had provisions for a shoulder stock fit in to the mess?


WuzzFuzz

Darn but I'm glad that I only owed standard "hold in your hand" handguns... that is before they all went down in the boat while I was fishing last night.

Them thar Fed rules and regulations both confuse and scare me these days.

Provided it was manufactured early in the century and a collector's item, they would probably rule that it is also exempt, just as the Lugers and Canadian Hi-Powers from the same period are also exempt.

ATF gets a hard time for a lot of things, deservedly so (the shoestring as an MG and the choreboy silencer rulings especially), but they've also been pretty reasonable with a lot of things that get sent their way. I've even seen Ithaca Auto-Burglars and Marbles game guns removed from the registry due to collector status - James Julia auctioned a couple of those off with proper documentation of exemption last year.

If you can prove collector status for AOWs or SBRs, meaning old and expensive, the ATF has been reasonable about excluding those from the regulations. It's just the MGs, suppressors and destructive devices that remain tightly controlled.

You probably need to change the color. It's probably white on white and dotted lines are considered misspelled words. Highlight entire copy and change font color to black or whatever color you want.

As for OP it doesn't seem to be correct format from the feds for a letter. Especially without a persons name. Maybe the BATF is different then other government agencies. I don't recall any response from our agency without a real persons name that would have gone under or above Firearms Technology Branch including their phone number and agency address. Not saying it's not real just strange for me as I worked for the government for 25 years and haven't seen this format but I didn't work for the BATF.

I would make sure I printed the entire email so it showed email address and date and time stamp on it.

__________________
Psalm 23:4

Too simple an answer wouldn't leave room for a judge to interpret on a case by case basis to fit whatever the agenda is at that time.

This sounds like cars, if you restore and old car there are different rules on emissions etc that if you fully fabricate a replica of an old car using entirely new parts. Though I am not sure exactly how much of the original car has to be there for it to be an old car. This applied not only to regulations related to emissions and such but also tax and registration rules.

It would seem to me that if you obtained a firearm missing a part and then added that part without altering the function it would still be "original" insofar as how it operates and whether or not it would be any more or less dangerous than when it was originally.
If you are making entirely new to the oringinal spec my opinion is that should also be treated the same as original, however, if making new it is possible that you could alter the specs such that it looks like the original but performs differently, increased pressure, increased rate of fire, greater accuracy, different caliber, more reliable action or feeding/ejecting, such that it is more likely to be used in a crime. Or at the very least could spawn an entire industry skirting the laws and regulations based on the exemptions.

I have a Chinese made copy of the Mauser pistol, with the usual misspellings in the markings. It's line for line and part for part identical to the Mauser. Don't know how many have been imported. China also made the Shansei 45s, a copy of the Mauser in 45 ACP, and also line for line, and part for part similiar to the Mauser.

You can click on the "Quote" button under his post. A new window will open up, that you could use for responding to a post (just as I am doing here with your post).

From this new window, you can click/copy/paste the contents of the email. Hope that helps!

__________________
-Roger

I never said it was confusing, but tis true, they didsay so BUT--they went about saying yes or no--the looonnnggg way. :-))

The reason these things are written in this manner is so they can be "interpreted" in whatever manner fits their agenda at a particular time, they don't have to change the law to change the interpretation.
I had this happen with a building code. Inspector's were not reading it correctly, or I should say as I read it, they said it meant "A", so I used meaning "A" to my advantage (a loophole) for years, all of a sudden one day they changed...it now meant "B" (like I thought it should) I asked , oh! the law has changed? Answer was NO, we changed our interpretation of the law!
So if written in such a manner , a law can mean something is legal and illegal all in the same law. Confusion wins the day every time.
Gary

Does this mean I can go shopping?

FWIW, the OP is a very good friend of mine and I've seen the original email in question in its full context. It is absolutely from the ATF.

I think that Josh's internet has been spotty lately(he recently moved) but I'll text him and make sure he knows that this thread has come back up. If you have any additional concerns as to the validity of the message, I'm sure he'd be happy to clear them up.

Yes the email is 100% authentic, it was sent from [email protected]. I originally emailed the generic ATF email address who forwarded it to NFA who sent it to FTB. They got back to me on the monday after the friday I sent the email on. Believe me or don't about the authenticity of the email, but for three reasons I will not post the actual email:

1. It is not a legally binding document of any sort, they simply provided me with relevant information regarding my inquiry hence why they don't just say yes or no, it's not their jobs they aren't laywers. As such I left it as my post, once I put the ATF email up somewhere it's no longer my information but rather the 'government's ruling' on something.

2. I posted it as an FYI, I'm glad that people found it useful and this was sufficient for me to feel comfortable buying my repo stock; however, if you were in my situation, you should contact the ATF and receive your own response.

3. A corollary to 1 and 2, the rules regarding this has changed in the past and is subject to change in the future, so again if you are uncertain, contact the ATF.

I fully admit this is a CYA move, but as a future doctor, I'm getting used to it lol.

I did want to address a few things from the posts however:

I thought their answer was very simple and spot on. Yes it's long, but paragraphs 1,2,3 and 4 were stating what firearms for which Chapter 53, § 5845(a)(3) is applicable and under what conditions they may be excluded. Paragraph 5 defines curio and relic status and that C&R does not exclude a firearm from the Gun Control Act or the NFA through C&R status alone. Many opinions on the internet state that C&R means that NFA does not apply which is false.

Paragraph 6 is the 'yes it is legal', since only the NFA prohibits detachable stocks and the C96 is removed from those provisions ergo their is no prohibition on the stock-gun combination provided it meets the requirements. From the information I've gathered, only German manufactured c96s are exempt as all documents I have seen specify "German manufactured Mauser Model of 1896". Additionally, the email says 'the provisions of the NFA' but I am not sure if this applies to all provisions or just this particular one.

Paragraph seven simply elaborates that possessing a pistol and stock concurrently that has not been removed from the NFA is a violation.

The "ambiguity" here is how the term combination would be defined but I think it is clear. If you have a list of guns and stocks [gun1,gun2..gunN] and stocks [stock1,stock2..stockN] if any combination of gunX and stockY is not exempted from the NFA and gunX can accept stockY, it is illegal. For example if I own an original 1914 p08 artillery luger with stock, and that were my only firearm capable of receiving the stock in its original configuration, it would be completely legal as that specific p08 model is exempt from the NFA if manufactured before a specific date. However, if I were to buy a reproduction Mitchell luger (they are stainless steel copies made in the late 20th century) that could receive the stock, my understanding of the email would mean that I am in violation of the NFA as the Mitchell can accept the stock but is not exempt from the NFA. I really doubt it would be much of an issue but that's my understanding of it. I don't think it's interpretation, that's pretty straight-forward to me although I do not agree with it.

Also I think the term original would refer to the part of the gun deemed the firearm, new springs or a firing pin with an original c96 frame is an original gun for the purposes of the NFA. However, if I were to get a new upper assembly then it would now be a non-original gun as the component considered the firearm is no longer original. A 1911 with stock may be exempted from the NFA, unless it is specifically listed as an exemption then no, it is illegal to possess both the stock and firearm unless the firearm has been deactivated or modified to not accept the stock. Such an exemption will be limited to specific manufacturers and dates of production. In general, if a firearm was designed for use of a stock prior to the NFA it is generally exempted. My limited searching however, did not provide me a complete list of exempt firearms, but I'm sure there is one and may be worth emailing the NFA again for this list. The AR15 pistols I have seen have covers over where the stock would install so that's probably a non-issue provided the AR15 pistol is in it's original configuration.

Additionally I should point out that their email is probably so wordy because I gave them an itemized list of things to address in their response in my original email to them. I'm glad this post has been useful for people, the information regarding this on the internet was limited and often out of date. Sorry for my lack of response on my thread, I haven't had internet due to TWC.

Just in case anyone was wondering and sense I mentioned it in my last post, this is the email I sent them and it may help in understanding the wording they employed in their response:

Dear Sir or Madam:

I recently purchased a C96 Mauser pistol and was interested in purchasing a reproduction stock for the handgun but was unsure of the legality of using the reproduction detachable stock on the handgun. As you may or may not be aware, the C96 came with a wooden stock that seconds as its holster. The stock can be removed and attached to the gun, which on a modern gun would make it an NFA item. Although I think an authentic stock is clearly legal to use but I'm not sure about a reproduction. I've looked around at NFA letters/rulings and have seen conflicting information and would like some clarification.

This is what I've gathered from my readings:

1. The c96 is exempt from the NFA.
2. Using an authentic removable stock is legal. The reason I've seen in the ATF documents regarding this is that given it's value to collectors it would be 'unlikely to be used as a weapon"
3. Using a reproduction removable stock has been illegal in the past (before the late 90s)
4. A legal reproduction stock must be very close in dimensions and function to the original authentic stock.

So if possible, can you tell me if a reproduction stock made to the same specifications as an original, would be legal to attach and use on my C96? Thought I should check with you all before I do something that could be super duper illegal.

Sincerely,

Joshua Mitchell

As Joshua suggested, I sent my own email to the ATF and got the following reply:

Due to the technical nature of your question, and in order to maintain consistency, we require that all inquiries of this nature be submitted in writing.
Please address your letter to the address below, to include your name and return mailing address, so that we may reply in writing. Please allow 60-90 days for a response.

Thank you,

BATFE
Firearms Technology Branch
244 Needy RD, Martinsburg, WV 25405

Ok, read it and still dont know what they mean. Dont care anyway.

I believe that's a better plan, anyway. Having a hard-copy document, on ATF letterhead, with a real, written-with-a-pen signature, would be better, in court, than a document made up of electrons.

__________________
I always take precautions

Hummm - Wonder if this would also apply to the Canadian Inglis HP from the WWII era, seem to remember a number of reproduction stocks being sold

Yeah I emailed them last night asking for a list of NFA exempted firearms and got the same response. Maybe I got lucky that day and they weren't busy, who knows? It is disappointing though, I was looking forward to that list.

So, what about a new reproduction Colt Walker fitted with a .45 Colt conversion cylinder, also of new manufacture?

__________________
Regards, Ron
USASA 1965/69

I would guess illegal seeing as how it isn't specifically mentioned in the regs. (Same with the Inglis.)

__________________
Dean
SWCA #680 SWHF #446

I looked that up just t'other day for a feller.

Here you go.

NFA exemption list | The Firearms Forum

__________________
I always take precautions

Thanks, I had tried to find one previously but could not.

I see now why they say thr "collectors" value of the original parts makes it unlikely to be used in a crime. Because a rare and expensive firearm is unlikely to be fired at all by a collector because that could reduce its collector value. Whereas a reproduction does not have nearly the same value and would have no reason to limit its use.
Of course that kinda ignores that criminals don't care about the collector value of a firearm and if they stole an original or a repro would be just as likely to use it in the commission of a crime, provides it is not some relic they can't figure out how to operate.

That means I can't own Colonel Mortimer's long barrel rifle stocked 45 long colt revolvers.

There's a 1911 with a rifle stock that has a 16" barrel. I was wondering if these were ever used in ww2?

I have my eye on a m96 mauser broomhandle.

I don't think it means you can't own them but just that the stock has to be permanently attached and you likely would have to get the tax stamp for an SBR.

Just to update the list:
In August 2014, I sent a letter to the BATF requesting a finding (NFA or not) on my C-96 with reproduction holster/stock. In an email, they said they would respond to a letter within 60-90 days. It is now 120+ days and I have heard nothing.

The AR stock is NOT QD.
UZI is another issue where the wood stock must be attached
with tools to be exempt from SBR. Not QD with a push of a button.
Know before you go there grey areas.

__________________
Have a blessed day ,
Bull

Still nothing yet.
Has anyone gotten an actual hard copy, letterhead, with signature finding?
To recap: as instructed by email from the BATF, I sent in 2014 a letter to the BATF requesting a finding on the legality of possessing a C-96 with reproduction holster/shoulder stock. I was promised a reply in 60 to 90 days. It's been a bit more than that now but still no letter. Sadly, the holster/stock I owned has long since gone into the trash (so when the black helicopter shows up, I'm clean. J).

As of today, still nothing. Almost two years. Longest 90 days I've ever experienced.

It would be even better if jmmitc06 could post a screenshot of the entire email including the To: and From: info and date that people could download...

Because the Inglis-made Browning 9mm's were of WWII manufacture, well after the 1940 date given , wouldn't their stocks be illegal to have with the gun? Or, are they exempted despite the relative recent manufacture?

I suppose any FN-made or other stocks made after WWII are illegal?

I want the repo c96 stock for my full auto select fire bb Broomhandle.