The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Black Powder and Cowboy Action Shooting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 6, 2013, 07:19 PM   #1
deerslayer303
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Leesville SC
Posts: 1,388
Shipping a modern Inline

Do the modern Inlines fall under the same rules as far as No FFL required when shipping? And can they go USPS too?
__________________
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson
deerslayer303 is offline  
Old April 6, 2013, 07:28 PM   #2
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,756
YES; however

The answer is YES, but some sellers require that it be shipped to an FFL, at your end. Makes absolutely no sense but I have run into this, on more that one occasion. ....

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old April 6, 2013, 11:38 PM   #3
North East Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 530
Pahoo, that's interesting. Anyone ever give you a clear explanation as to why an inline is different? I know its no different and so do you. Curious as to what peoples logic is on this.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Goal Member
SAF Member
North East Redneck is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 05:54 AM   #4
Doc Hoy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 4,629
NER

My thought in this issue is that there are essentially three levels of "pucker factor"

The first is the federal govenment and the regulations in place.

The second is the various states and of course in some cases, their regulations trump the feds.

Finally it is the individual shipping or receiving the weapon. Even though this final level in some cases, makes no sense, has no basis in law, if you can't get a shipper to ship in a reasonable manner, your only recourse is to avoid dealing with them. (Unless you want to get involved in a long and pointless argument, which will eventually go in favor of the person setting the rules.)

I really get impatient when I encounter folks who strive for "zero risk" in a world in which nearly all risk in manageable.
__________________
Doc

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
Doc Hoy is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 08:06 AM   #5
Captchee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2013
Posts: 336
Actually , it depends . Some of the modern guns fall under the FFA and there for must go through an FFL . Sadly it also now depends on what state your sending the gun to as a few now make it a real hassle to send even a traditional muzzleloader without going through an FFL
The Fed has a list of muzzleloaders which fall under the FFA which you can download .
But the vast majority do not need to go through an FFL

Now some are going to disagree with what im going to say next and that’s ok .
Depending on your modern design , the ignition system may in fact predate the 1898 rule .
Case in point , plunger type inline ignitions which actually date to the early 1700’s

As of late , some dealers have become so , no pun intended “gun shy” that they will only ship through FFL’s . IMO that’s just a CYA thing and thus personal choice

Some folks also have suggested that if your modern inline uses rifle or 209 primers that it also must then be sent through an FFL .
I don’t believe this to be true as that ruling was amended .
But if your modern inline is capable of interchangeable barrels to modern center fire , then yes its most lily on the Fed list of required FFL shipment
Captchee is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 08:22 AM   #6
PetahW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2008
Posts: 4,679
The 4th factor is ignorance of the law.

BTW - the only frontstuffers requiring the use of an FFL are those with removeable/interchangeable barrels, whose frames can be fitted with a barrel chambered for a metallic cartridge - the T/C Encore, H&R, and other break-open inlines come to mind.



.
PetahW is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 10:48 AM   #7
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,756
Right or wrong, seller's call !!

Quote:
Now some are going to disagree with what im going to say next and that’s ok .
Depending on your modern design , the ignition system may in fact predate the 1898 rule .
Case in point , plunger type inline ignitions which actually date to the early 1700’s
You are correct that some will take issue with this and you are not correct on why as this is not what the law says. ....
Regardless of design, it is still an M/L.

Quote:
I really get impatient when I encounter folks who strive for "zero risk" in a world in which nearly all risk in manageable.
Exactly and you will even find them, in this forum. However, as others have stated, that is the sellers call and you don't have to deal with them. ....

Quote:
Pahoo, that's interesting. Anyone ever give you a clear explanation as to why an inline is different? I know its no different and so do you. Curious as to what peoples logic is on this.
I've had this happen twice and the one that really stands out, was on an In-Line and the seller was a pawn shop. The explaination was clear as it was part of their CYA program. Now, I can see some of you second guessing as it was an in-line but when I asked them about side-locks, their policy was the same; It made no difference. ......
Now, it threw my local dealer, a real curve as he did not know what his requiremenmts might be, so he just handed me the M/L. ???

Quote:
whose frames can be fitted with a barrel chambered for a metallic cartridge - the T/C Encore, H&R, and other break-open inlines come to mind.
This is true and there are a number of M/L's that have multiple barrels, such as the TC System-1. As longs as it stays and M/L, you are okay.

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 11:40 AM   #8
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,756
Just one example

Folks,
Here is one potential example of what I'm refering to. Now, on one occasion I questioned the seller and he withdrew this requirement so not sure what this seller would do. It is very common to see this listing. Keep in mind that this is a sidelock. .....

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=335868563

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 01:13 PM   #9
Sure Shot Mc Gee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2012
Posts: 2,158
Could it have something to do with right to return under State law? (Guy doesn't like his (whatever purchase) here in MN within 3 days. Its easier to return that item to the local FFL under the States (3-day right to return) Purchase Law than it is to send it back to its original owner across State borders hopping to get a timely refund. Once a FFL holder is involved and a fee has been paid for the transaction. The FFL holder is expected to pursue the refund in behalf of his client.)
__________________
Watch it!!! their both out to get us.
Sure Shot Mc Gee is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 03:13 PM   #10
Captchee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2013
Posts: 336
Quote:
You are correct that some will take issue with this and you are not correct on why as this is not what the law says. ....
Regardless of design, it is still an M/L.
Really it doesn’t mater if they take issue or not , its fact
What I was getting at is that some of the early plunger type inline ignition guns are simply reproductions of pre 1898 rifles that have modern stock designs , nothing less nothing more

As to the 2nd part , Ill have to disagree .
Infact as I said , its easily looked up on the ATF web site .

While most that require FFL’s are systems with interchangeable barrels , not all are . Just because it loads from the muzzle doesn’t mean it doesn’t take an FFL .
It also has to do with the design of the action and receiver making it “CAPABLE” . Case in point , the Knight ML10 .
The original design failed the letter of the law and was found to be “capable” of converting to center fire . Knight had to redesign it slightly . IE they removed one of t locking lugs . It then passed the ATF checks and now the 2nd model is sold without an FFL even though its smokeless .
In fact the ATF specifically lists the ML10 “1st version” as requiring a FFL on their web site
Now if we look at say the Bad Bull , it requires and FFL
Here is the actual laws as its written


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/collectors.html

Last edited by Captchee; April 7, 2013 at 03:22 PM. Reason: content
Captchee is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 05:23 PM   #11
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,756
Strickly M/L's

Quote:
It also has to do with the design of the action and receiver making it “CAPABLE” . Case in point , the Knight ML10 .
Knight ML10; never heard of it and perhaps you mean Savage 10ML of which they don't make anymore and currently there are nine in GB of which none, require and FFL. You are also talking about the first version and that is really reaching and specific to that M/L which could be converted. Go back and read your reference. I'm talking strictly about M/L's. Perhaps you also might be talking about the KP-1 System of which I would agree. ...

Now, on the rest, if I agreed with you, we would both be wrong. ....


http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx...ds=savage+10ml
Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 08:57 PM   #12
North East Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2012
Location: Berkshire Hills
Posts: 530
Doc and Pahoo- good points. Thanks.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Goal Member
SAF Member
North East Redneck is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 09:11 PM   #13
deerslayer303
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Leesville SC
Posts: 1,388
Pahoo,

I couldn't help myself, I emailed that seller on GB. He quickly responded and said he would be glad to ship it directly to me. If thats the case why list it as FFL required? Maybe these dealers have a blanket listing template?? I know you can do that with ebay. Not sure if GB is the same way as I've never sold anything on there. Which I may if I don't sell this GPR soon.
__________________
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson
deerslayer303 is offline  
Old April 9, 2013, 09:59 PM   #14
woodnbow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2012
Posts: 129
Notice too...

The sellers requiring FFL for shipment never get the same prices as the guys playing by the rules... The whole CYA thing gets tiresome, we've bought and sold hundreds of guns without so much as a peek at a drivers license back in the day, I've bet a paycheck not one of them was used in a crime of any sort...

Now in Colorado, we have to undergo background checks for private sales. At least for the time being; there are quite a number of sheriffs that refuse to enforce that particular unconstitutional law (violation is a misdemeanor) and I'm sure constitutional challenges will follow.
woodnbow is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 09:55 PM   #15
airbrnpig
Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Posts: 24
+1 one "its up to the seller" but a quick call can rectify that cya policy. I had an online store (grab a gun) request I ship my new BP to a FFL. I called. Referenced the ATF list and they sent it to my home.
airbrnpig is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09743 seconds with 9 queries