Cartridge conversion cylinder = firearm, or not?

[hoof hearted]

I am of the opinion that this "Chicken Little" miss-interpretation was perpetrated by a feud between two different producers of cartridge conversion cylinders.

The term "modify" is loose and if applied in the manner you are saying it could include bluing, case hardening, engraving, et al. The actual verbiage of the federal law states "redesigned for using rimfire or Centerfire fixed ammunition". This does not say a modified frame as can be evidenced at the end of that section where it say's "which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof." Affixing a ring (whether solid, ported or gated) that precludes the use of the cap and ball cylinder and that allows the use of a bored through cylinder that is chambered for a rimfire or centerfire cartridge which is "commonly available through the normal courses of trade" is "Modifying" of the revolver into a firearm. Notice the term used is AFFIXING. This means one that is attached, not one that slides on and off.

The capping relief as used on cap and ball revolvers has changed by model and type within the specific manufacture of each factory and CAN be modified or changed as needed. The mere presence of a "port" or a loading gate does not make a "firearm" out of a cap and ball pistol. Reference the 1873 SAA replicas built as cap and ball revolvers by both Pietta and Uberti. The "INTENT" of making a firearm by owning a conversion and the revolver "creates" a firearm much the same as having an AR pistol and a stock that fits it can be determined an SBR and that intent has been proven in the courts many times. If the conversion is with the revolver there is intent. Whatever you were told was Government over reach and it happens all the time. But porting a cap and ball revolvers does not a firearm make!

[Al Norris]

Ordinarily, necro-threads are closed.

This is one of a handful of cases where new information to this 6½ year old thread, allows it to possibly continue. "Possibly" because someone may still have an interest.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

The capping relief as used on cap and ball revolvers has changed by model and type within the specific manufacture of each factory and CAN be modified or changed as needed. The mere presence of a "port" or a loading gate does not make a "firearm" out of a cap and ball pistol.

FWIW, the advisory that opening the capping relief on a black powder Remington or Colt clone to allow loading cartridges into a conversion cylinder without removing the cylinder was in the installation instructions that came with a Kirst conversion cylinder for the 1858 Remington clone I shot. It did not come from the government. Perhaps Kirst was being overly cautious in an attempt to preclude his being sued, or charged with some violation of federal law. I don't know why the instructions said that, but I know that they did.

That gun was converted probably around 2012 (or so). I also don't know if the current instructions from Kirst include the same advisory.

The Kenny Howell's (R&D) conversions all use a removable back plate that contains an individual firing pin for each cartridge. Those can't be loaded without removing the cylinder from the gun, so there's no need or reason to enlarge the loading relief.

[hoof hearted]

Aguila

Your reply at the top of the thread was before 2012 and you said you did the install a couple years before that.

A couple of years ago I had an opportunity to shoot a black powder revolver that had been converted. The instructions that came with the conversion cylinder included a template for grinding the frame to allow reloading with the cylinder in the gun. The one I shot had NOT been so modified, but the instructions stated that making that alteration would be the legal equivalent of manufacturing a "modern" revolver. This is completely legal, but forever thereafter it would have to be bought and sold as a modern firearm rather than as a black powder firearm.

I have been directly involved with Walt Kirst and his conversions since the late 1990's. The directions used to state that "installing a Kirst conversion into your BP pistol" makes it a firearm. Of course it did not say that removing it would render it a non-firearm as this is obvious. Inserting and installing mean the same thing in this context and inserting an R&D is the same thing.

You even mistakenly say "there is no resaon to enlarge the loading relief" as though it is a loading relief when it is a BP pistol. It is actually a "capping" relief.....but I have no idea why. It appears you are arguing both sides of the OP's question?

Walt and I had a burger at the Bluff Dale store last week and spoke about this thread, the spread of miss-information (and he named the source of the rumor that started all this in motion) and the lunacy that has ensued since that date. It is amazing how many people can take something out of context as a reason to prove they are right.

Each and every year I have a new BATFE agent assigned to do my inspection and each and every time we have a discussion regarding this aspect of the law (since it is how I make a living) and not once have I been told that the things I mentioned in my first post were incorrect.

I completely understand the thought process of erring to the safe and at my age I have had more than my share of court battles and Lawyers. But it is ridiculous for potential customers and fellow gun enthusiasts to be "scared" away from doing something that is legal by the "armchair experts".

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

I am of the opinion that this "Chicken Little" miss-interpretation was perpetrated by a feud between two different producers of cartridge conversion cylinders.

The term "modify" is loose and if applied in the manner you are saying it could include bluing, case hardening, engraving, et al. The actual verbiage of the federal law states "redesigned for using rimfire or Centerfire fixed ammunition". This does not say a modified frame as can be evidenced at the end of that section where it say's "which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof." Affixing a ring (whether solid, ported or gated) that precludes the use of the cap and ball cylinder and that allows the use of a bored through cylinder that is chambered for a rimfire or centerfire cartridge which is "commonly available through the normal courses of trade" is "Modifying" of the revolver into a firearm. Notice the term used is AFFIXING. This means one that is attached, not one that slides on and off.

You've made some claims as to the statutory language. Please provide citations to those statutes.

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

. . . . The "INTENT" of making a firearm by owning a conversion and the revolver "creates" a firearm much the same as having an AR pistol and a stock that fits it can be determined an SBR and that intent has been proven in the courts many times. . . . .

Citation to court cases in which "that intent has been proven," please.

[hoof hearted]

Spats

The "statutory" language is posted above in the thread, repeatedly. BATFE codes are easy to search.

I'm surprised that you have never heard of "constructive intent" but I invite you to do the google search.

This is a pretty interesting tone you are taking with me in a public place. It almost appears you would rather err to the "interpretations" of others. Why do you feel the need to single me out?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

The "statutory" language is posted above in the thread, repeatedly. BATFE codes are easy to search.

I saw that. That's why I asked you for a citation. I'd like to read it for myself.

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

I'm surprised that you have never heard of "constructive intent" but I invite you to do the google search.

Hmm. I'm familiar with constructive possession and intent, but I must admit that the concept of "constructive intent," in the context of firearms or NFA law, eludes me at the moment.

Nonetheless, you claimed that

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

. . . . The "INTENT" of making a firearm by owning a conversion and the revolver "creates" a firearm much the same as having an AR pistol and a stock that fits it can be determined an SBR and that intent has been proven in the courts many times. . . . .

If it's been "proven in the courts many times," then surely you can point us to one such case?

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

This is a pretty interesting tone you are taking with me in a public place. It almost appears you would rather err to the "interpretations" of others. Why do you feel the need to single me out?

The proponent of legal and factual claims bears the burden of proof. I'm simply holding you to that. I'm not "singling you out," any more than I have done with others in this forum.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

The capping relief as used on cap and ball revolvers has changed by model and type within the specific manufacture of each factory and CAN be modified or changed as needed. The mere presence of a "port" or a loading gate does not make a "firearm" out of a cap and ball pistol. Reference the 1873 SAA replicas built as cap and ball revolvers by both Pietta and Uberti. The "INTENT" of making a firearm by owning a conversion and the revolver "creates" a firearm much the same as having an AR pistol and a stock that fits it can be determined an SBR and that intent has been proven in the courts many times. If the conversion is with the revolver there is intent. Whatever you were told was Government over reach and it happens all the time. But porting a cap and ball revolvers does not a firearm make!

This may be correct, but the fact remains that the instructions accompanying the conversion cylinder that was used in the gun I posted about however many years ago did clearly state that opening up the capping relief to allow loading cartridges to be loaded without removing the cylinder made the gun into a "modern" firearm. If that statement is incorrect, it was Walt Kirst or whoever wrote the instruction sheet for him that was incorrect. If Walt Kirst has revised his instruction sheet to either remove or to revise this statement, then tell us that. It said what it said, and at the time I read it I fully expected that, as the manufacturer of the conversion cylinder in question, he was conveying information that was correct and reliable.

The instructions made no mention that removing the conversion cylinder from the firearm after opening up the capping relief into a loading relief would allow the gun to revert to black powder (or "antique") status. The statement in the instructions was clearly that it was the act of opening up the relief that made it into a "modern" firearm, NOT the installation of the conversion cylinder.

It may indeed be that this information is incorrect. If it is incorrect, any misunderstanding is not the result of some "feud" between Walt Kirst and Kenny Howells. It is because Walt Kirst's instructions said what they said, and when the question was asked I passed along what I had read in his instructions.

[hoof hearted]

Spats

The proponent of legal and factual claims bears the burden of proof. I'm simply holding you to that. I'm not "singling you out," any more than I have done with others in this forum.

I will do the homework that you seem to think you have a right to ask me for when YOU post something here that shows the "opposition's opinion" has legal standing.

[hoof hearted]

Aguila

Until you produce said "instructions" your "recollection" is nothing more than a recollection and you have already proven that you don't remember the date that you supposedly read this information, which may or may not have been factual, and could have possibly been conjecture on the author's part in order to avoid civil liability.

[Aguila Blanca]

The information was contemporaneous when I first posted it. It's easy for you to demand that I produce an instruction sheet that I read almost a decade ago, but we both know that's not likely to happen. I stand by what I wrote: the instructions said that opening up the capping port to allow loading cartridges made the firearm into a "modern" firearm. If you want to come right out and call me a liar, so be it.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

I will do the homework that you seem to think you have a right to ask me for when YOU post something here that shows the "opposition's opinion" has legal standing.

I never claimed it did.

[Aguila Blanca]

To my surprise, the owner of the Pietta Remington clone does still have the instructions for the conversion cylinder, and I was able to get photos.





I added the red underlining of the text. I think that supports what I've written pretty completely. Whether or not the information was correct is, perhaps, another matter.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

Spats

I will do the homework that you seem to think you have a right to ask me for when YOU post something here that shows the "opposition's opinion" has legal standing.

He didn't say the opposition's opinion had legal standing. He asked you to support your opinions. It is your burden to support your opinions, and if you can't, your opinions have no standing -- legal or otherwise. See the "burden of proof fallacy."

1. Burden of proof fallacy:

   ...The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever....

2. Burden of proof fallacy:

   ...The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. ....

3. Burden of proof fallacy:

   ...Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance....

So if you refer to a statute (e. g., post 26), it's up to you to provide the citation to the statute so that we can review it in its primary source.

If you refer to a particular concept or principle as being applicable (e.g., "constructive intent" in post 31), it's up to you to establish by citation to appropriate authority the existence, meaning, and applicability.

If you refer to something being "proven in court" (e. g., post 26), it's up to you to cite the cases, or at least some cases, so that we can, among other things, review the primary source material and decide if we agree with your assessment.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by hoof hearted

Until you produce said "instructions" your "recollection" is nothing more than a recollection and you have already proven that you don't remember the date that you supposedly read this information, which may or may not have been factual, and could have possibly been conjecture on the author's part in order to avoid civil liability.

Against all odds, I have managed to live up to the burden of proof and post photos of the source of the statement on which I based my (much) earlier post. I have already acknowledged that I don't know enough about firearms law to be able to say whether or not the statement in Kirst's "Statement of Liability" is correct, but the statement was there. I would certainly think that taking a Dremel to the frame for two or three hours of grinding away metal would be considered a "permanent alteration to the frame."

Based on this, I think it's not at all correct to blame the "miss-information" [sic] on a feud between two makers of conversion cylinders. The information ("miss-" or otherwise) came from Kirst's instructions. Has Kirst revised his instruction sheet since the one I saw was printed? I have no idea. Did he write that sentence in order to shield himself from potential liability? Again, I don't know but I have already suggested that might have been the case. His motive in writing it and disseminating it with his conversion cylinders isn't the point -- the point is that he did write it (or someone wrote it for him) and he did send it out with his conversion cylinders. Buyers of his product could be expected to think, especially since he had cited federal law in a preceding paragraph, that he knew what he was talking about and that they could/should accept what he wrote as factual and correct.

[Spats McGee]

This is the Law & Civil Rights forum. If there's a need to discuss this further, in a manner appropriate to this forum, then someone can start a new thread.

Cleaned up and closed.