Was it FBI or ATF that took the gun?

[PatManToo]

I am new to your forum, but this may be of interest to some of you. This took place when I was a senior in high school.

Back in 1966, I was working with a friend/mentor who had a .22 pistol. The pistol had been made from a discarded rifle used at a livestock slaughter house, called Hanses Packing. It was a single shot, .22 short, bolt action rifle. The barrel was shortened and a hand grip attached. A registration number was given to it by the local police department in Yakima, WA. After the number was applied, it was registered at the PD and made legal. The year of the modifications was 1958.

In 1966, the FBI issued a notice that any modified guns needed to be registered prior to the “Gun Control Act of 1968” being enforced by the new ATF division. My friend inquired as to whether or not his gun needed to be re-registered. A letter said they would be 'in touch'. About a month later, and after the end of the period to legally register, two FBI agents appeared, asked for the gun, and said it was now illegal to possess this gun. They took the gun.

After letters to Congresswoman Catherine May, Rep, a letter came back telling my friend his gun would be returned. However, it could not be found in Spokane, WA, where it had been taken to be destroyed.

About a year later a letter revealed that it had been found in a 'cache' of weapons taken from the Black Panthers in CA. He has never had the gun returned.

Should you register guns?

 

[elm_creek_smith]

I find it interesting that a gun seized by the FBI (or ATF) would end up being "found in a 'cache' of weapons taken from the Black Panthers in CA."

Nothing good can come from registering guns.

ECS

 

[jlrhiner]

I would sure like to read the paper trail on THATone!

 

[PatManToo]

My friend who had the gun taken is now 73. I have written to the FBI in Seattle, WA to see if I could find out the "paper trail", but they have never responded to me.

 

[Maximumbob54]

I will not talk politics on this forum.

I will not talk politics on this forum.

I will not talk politics on this forum.

There, now I feel better.

 

[HKSmith]

I think there's some misunderstanding of the term "registration" here. The only firearms that are registered with the Federal government are those covered by the National Firearms Act (1934 and amendments). Those are machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, and some unconventional weapons (pen guns etc.). Your friends gun was a short-barreled rifle. Even in 1958 it would have required payment of a $200 tax and registration with the U.S. Treasury Department to make and own such a weapon. The Yakima Police would have had no authority to accomplish that. What I suspect happened is that they stamped a serial number on the gun, which a lot of old .22 rifles didn't have at the time (they weren't always required on long guns). Except in some localities in the U.S., there's no such thing as gun registration even if one wanted to do it! I doubt that the State of Washington had gun registration, then or now.

In 1968, because of some legal technicalities with the 1934 NFA, there was a 30 day amnesty period during which any NFA weapon could be registered and legally owned without charge regardless of its history. Your friends gun could have been made legal at that time. It actually was never registered, just confiscated as contraband because of the lack of registration.

 

[PatManToo]

Was it FBI...?

I talked with my friend a week ago about the incident and he said he no longer has the paper work. He tossed it he thinks. He was a Navy man on a destroyer tender, machinist, welder, etc. stationed in Guam, mostly. The whole point is that he is a good compliant American citizen who tried to comply with the laws. The 1934 and 1968 laws also talk about "modified" guns. A single shot .22 bolt action pistol would not be my choice to use in a defensive manner. Never put your tongue on frozen pipes and never ask a question that could result in having your guns taken. Your sales receipts for bullets are enough exposure!

 

[locapitano]

. Your friends gun was a short-barreled rifle.

I think this is incorrect.

I am in no means quoting the law but if I'm not mistaken for a rifle to be a "Rifle" it has to have a buttstock. Which is why if you add a buttstock to a glock pistol for instance you have a SBR becuase it has a buttstock and a barrel under 16"

The OP stated that his friend added a pistol grip to it.

The same way you can have an AR15 pistol even if it has the buffertube so long as there is no butt stock.

 

[9c1 lover]

Looks like the atf was giving guns to bad guys even way back then.

 

[HKSmith]

I think this is incorrect.

I am in no means quoting the law but if I'm not mistaken for a rifle to be a "Rifle" it has to have a buttstock. Which is why if you add a buttstock to a glock pistol for instance you have a SBR becuase it has a buttstock and a barrel under 16"

The OP stated that his friend added a pistol grip to it.

The same way you can have an AR15 pistol even if it has the buffertube so long as there is no butt stock.

If a firearm was originally manufactured with a buttstock, it remains a rifle (or shotgun) permanently for NFA purposes. The buttstock can be removed and/or the barrel can be shortened as long as the overall length is over 26 inches and the barrel is over 16 inches (18 inches for a shotgun). If the altered gun does not meet those requirements, a $200 tax must be paid and the alteration approved prior to the alteration. The firearm will then be permanenty registered.

Also, adding a buttstock to a handgun makes it a short-barreled rifle and subject to the same requirements.

It is illegal to convert a rifle to a handgun without paying the tax and registering the weapon as a short-barreled rifle. Weapons like AR-15 handguns are legal only if they were originally manufactured as handguns.

The weapon in question here was originally manufactured as a rifle, so it was illegal to convert it to a pistol without paying the $200 tax and registering it with the Treasury Department. If it had been converted legally, there would have been no need to re-register it during the 1968 amnesty. Whatever the Yakima police did in 1958 or whatever paperwork was issued certainly didn't meet the requirements of the NFA.

 

[locapitano]

If a firearm was originally manufactured with a buttstock, it remains a rifle (or shotgun) permanently for NFA purposes. The buttstock can be removed and/or the barrel can be shortened as long as the overall length is over 26 inches and the barrel is over 16 inches (18 inches for a shotgun). If the altered gun does not meet those requirements, a $200 tax must be paid and the alteration approved prior to the alteration. The firearm will then be permanenty registered.

Also, adding a buttstock to a handgun makes it a short-barreled rifle and subject to the same requirements.

It is illegal to convert a rifle to a handgun without paying the tax and registering the weapon as a short-barreled rifle. Weapons like AR-15 handguns are legal only if they were originally manufactured as handguns.

The weapon in question here was originally manufactured as a rifle, so it was illegal to convert it to a pistol without paying the $200 tax and registering it with the Treasury Department. If it had been converted legally, there would have been no need to re-register it during the 1968 amnesty. Whatever the Yakima police did in 1958 or whatever paperwork was issued certainly didn't meet the requirements of the NFA.

I stand corrected!

 

[jrd1976]

Make an official request under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[handejector]

I am new to your forum, but this may be of interest to some of you. This took place when I was a senior in high school.

Back in 1966, I was working with a friend/mentor who had a .22 pistol. The pistol had been made from a discarded rifle used at a livestock slaughter house, called Hanses Packing. It was a single shot, .22 short, bolt action rifle. The barrel was shortened and a hand grip attached. A registration number was given to it by the local police department in Yakima, WA. After the number was applied, it was registered at the PD and made legal. The year of the modifications was 1958.

In 1966, the FBI issued a notice that any modified guns needed to be registered prior to the “Gun Control Act of 1968” being enforced by the new ATF division.
My friend inquired as to whether or not his gun needed to be re-registered. A letter said they would be 'in touch'. About a month later, and after the end of the period to legally register, two FBI agents appeared, asked for the gun, and said it was now illegal to possess this gun. They took the gun.

After letters to Congresswoman Catherine May, Rep, a letter came back telling my friend his gun would be returned. However, it could not be found in Spokane, WA, where it had been taken to be destroyed.

About a year later a letter revealed that it had been found in a 'cache' of weapons taken from the Black Panthers in CA. He has never had the gun returned.

Should you register guns?

Sorry, but several points about the story sound strange.
Sometimes memories get a bit distorted when they are approaching 5 decades in age!

First, the local PD has no authority to issue a serial number for a gun and "make it legal" in contradiction to federal law.

In 1966, the FBI issued a notice that any modified guns needed to be registered prior to the “Gun Control Act of 1968” being enforced by the new ATF division.

This is also a bit odd-
a notice was issued about an upcoming law two years before the upcoming law was made a law?

After letters to Congresswoman Catherine May, Rep, a letter came back telling my friend his gun would be returned.

A letter from who? If it was from the congresswoman, I could understand the error. I don't think ATF would be offering to return an illegal weapon.

About a year later a letter revealed that it had been found in a 'cache' of weapons taken from the Black Panthers in CA.

Again, a letter from who? Sounds strange that they would write you about one little rifle/pistol they had lost custody of......

I talked with my friend a week ago about the incident and he said he no longer has the paper work. He tossed it he thinks.

Again, I question memory. He thinks he tossed the paperwork?
We're talking about confiscation of an illegal weapon 46 years ago that had been illegal for 32 years when confiscated, and your friend suffered nothing but loss of the weapon???
Sounds like a good outcome to me.
Is the pot being stirred here?

 

[WR Moore]

I can recall a guy in PA getting into trouble in a similar manner 40 odd years ago. In PA at that time, if you wished to hunt with a shotgun with a barrel less than 24", you had to get a permit from the County Sheriff (wierd Game Law). The paperwork made the shotgun a "pistol" and allowed carry while hunting.

Someone got a permit for his very own creation involving a double barrel shotgun with 10" tubes. Apparently, the deputy/clerk didn't bother to read the paperwork he was processing. No one but the dude who created the thing was surprised when he got arrested (we all told him he was violating the law, but no, he had it covered!) and the piece confiscated while he was at a range.

Having dealt with the various federal agencies following the enactment of the GCA '68, there was much confusion. Many of the "new feds" had only cursory knowledge of firearms and dealing with them was interesting. There were a whole lot of former clerks who got jumped many pay grades to become "Federal Agents" due to the expansion of the ATF Firearms Division.

Now then, the amnesty period for registering NFA weaponry was 6 months, expiring in 1969, IIRC. I've got grave doubts the FBI/DOJ had anything to do with the whole process unless they were "loaned" as extra bodies to assist as required. The ATF already existed at that time as part of the Treasury Department, and had since selling guns became a Federally licensed endevor and NFA firearms had come into existence. ATF was swamped with amnesty applications for NFA firearms and were long behind in their paperwork.

Your friend should have applied for registration of the weapon, paid his fees and retained all copies. I expect in the confusion, somone handed out stacks of letters from various folks and told agents to expedite resolution of the issue. Since putting up a fuss could have resulted, at minimum, in beau coup legal bills, giving up the contraband was a good idea. He should have asked for a receipt for the weapon, but it might have been hinted that letting it disappear was a good idea.

 

[PatManToo]

handejector,
The ATF was formed around 1968. The Congresswoman put pressure on the newly formed division to effect the return of the pistol.
New laws can sit in committees for years until they are either killed or made into law. When the law was finalized, there was a one year period to comply with it. Towards the end of the compliance period, my friend made the inquiry as to whether or not the new law meant he needed to register with ATF as well as locally. The reply from ATF was that they would be in touch. He thought by letter, instead they just showed up. My friend has moved several times and to two different cities since the incident, as well as a divorce and new marriage. Who knows what wives do in these cases?

 

[J D Allen]

registering weapons

Its a need to know basis. I know I have it and they don't need to know at all.