June 8, 2009, 03:14 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Location: Modesto, Califonria
Posts: 50
|
STG-44 Advise.
I've found a STG-44 for $8000, I want to know what you guys think, is it worth the buy (which would have to be a loan) Or should I save my cash monies?
haha i cant post the link seeing as how im at an apple store at the mall, but its on Gunbroker, will post the link later. A little bit for info on it: The original receiver has cut out and replaced by a Semi-Auto one seeing as how the seller is located in Washington and fully automatic weapons are illegal. The seller has the original and it would look good if it was re-blued, but Im not sure if its worth the buy... Advise?
__________________
If I owned those, my life would be set! <img src=http://www.panzergrenadier.net/images/g43/badass.jpg> |
June 8, 2009, 10:41 PM | #2 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
|
|
June 8, 2009, 10:44 PM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Location: Modesto, Califonria
Posts: 50
|
I couldnt even own the receiver, even if the weapon only fires in semi-auto?
__________________
If I owned those, my life would be set! <img src=http://www.panzergrenadier.net/images/g43/badass.jpg> |
June 8, 2009, 10:56 PM | #4 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
To repeat: The original receiver is legally a machine gun all by itself, whether it has the rest of the parts connected to it or not, unless it is torch-cut to BATFE specifications.
It is illegal in CA. Even if you were not in CA, it is illegal for you to transfer on a Form 4 through a Class 3 SOT, since you are 19. It is also illegal for the seller to own the original receiver in WA state, again unless it is torch-cut to BATFE specs. EDIT: Searching Gunbroker, this is the only StG-44 I'm finding, and it's neither $8k, nor semiauto, nor in WA... EDIT II: Further, even if the gun is a parts kit built on a new semi-auto receiver, it would be illegal in CA, since it is semiauto, feeds from a detachable magazine, and has a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously below the action. |
June 8, 2009, 11:14 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Location: Modesto, Califonria
Posts: 50
|
__________________
If I owned those, my life would be set! <img src=http://www.panzergrenadier.net/images/g43/badass.jpg> |
June 8, 2009, 11:21 PM | #6 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Something smells bad about that.
Re-weld receiver with a BATFE-compliant semiauto trigger group, and a push-pin FA trigger group? In a non-NFA state? And he's selling it as a Title I gun? Hell, he's in "constructive possession" of a machine gun in those pictures. Either that guy is clueless and lucky, or it's a sting. Either way, don't worry about it; you can't own that gun in California. |
June 8, 2009, 11:24 PM | #7 |
Member
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Location: Modesto, Califonria
Posts: 50
|
I HATE THIS STATE!
Ever since I've been here the laws seem to get worse and worse every day, and I'm just more and more disappointed with the State run by the Governator...any other laws here that will dampen my WWII collection?
__________________
If I owned those, my life would be set! <img src=http://www.panzergrenadier.net/images/g43/badass.jpg> |
June 8, 2009, 11:26 PM | #8 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
|
|
June 9, 2009, 04:10 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,890
|
To me, no gun is worth that much money.
|
June 9, 2009, 05:23 PM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Location: Modesto, Califonria
Posts: 50
|
I want it for the Collection value, but i may just get one of those replica blank firing ones...who knows
__________________
If I owned those, my life would be set! <img src=http://www.panzergrenadier.net/images/g43/badass.jpg> |
June 9, 2009, 07:22 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
June 9, 2009, 07:44 PM | #13 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
I had a customer who owned an StG-44 buzzgun. I declined the offer to fire it every time he offered, as I was 26 at the time and mortally a-feared it would break while I was shooting it and I'd feel obliged to pay for repairs. It was typically crude late-war German manufacture (nice fit and finish are hard to achieve when you have G.P. 500-pounders coming through the ceiling) and a lot bigger, heavier, and clunkier than you'd think. |
|
June 9, 2009, 07:54 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2009
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,890
|
Im all seriousness, maybe it's because I am overly practical... if I had a spare $8,000 to spend on something, it definitely would not be a gun. For me to spend that kind of money on any item or object, it would have to do something, that a much cheaper counterpart couldn't. As a photographer, I buy expensive lenses even though cheap ones are readily available, because the pricier ones have capabilities, features, and produce superior image quality that make spending more something that's worthwhile. A semi-auto StG44 doesn't do anything than AK47 (and clones/variants thereof) can't, so why pay 15 times as much?
|
June 9, 2009, 08:17 PM | #15 |
Member
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Location: Modesto, Califonria
Posts: 50
|
[quote]A semi-auto StG44 doesn't do anything than AK47 (and clones/variants thereof) can't, so why pay 15 times as much?[quote]
The collectable value...its all about the Swastica lately, Gew 98s arent worth anything compared to a non-peened K98 with all visable Waffenamps and Swasticas.
__________________
If I owned those, my life would be set! <img src=http://www.panzergrenadier.net/images/g43/badass.jpg> |
June 9, 2009, 08:50 PM | #16 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
A re-weld parts kit gun or modern repro has no "collectible value". (...and discussion of such doesn't even belong in the "Curio & Relic" subforum, since such a gun would not qualify as a C&R, any more than a Century Arms semiauto "CETME" or "FAL" would... The Title I gun at the Gunbroker link is no more a real StG-44 than Jeff Gordon's weekend ride is a real Chevy Impala.) |
|
June 9, 2009, 09:26 PM | #17 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
Best to understand this:
A person owning a machinegun in the U.S. can't just convert it to semi-auto unless it had already been registered as a machinegun. And if it was already registered as a machinegun, he would have to be a lunatic to convert it to semi and lose many thousands of dollars. If a person owns an unregistered StG.44 in the U.S., he is in violation of the law. He cannot convert it to semi-auto and make it legal. It doesn't matter what receiver he puts on it, his initial possession of the machinegun was illegal. A person who owns an unregistered machinegun in the U.S. cannot deactivate it or cut it up and make it legal. His possession of it was illegal, the law violation has already taken place and he can't "unviolate" the law. Further, he can't even legally destroy it or drop it in a lake, because that is destroying evidence of a felony, the felony being illegal possession of the gun. Now a manufactuer with a proper license can make a machinegun using scrap or parts, but he may not legally (since 1986) sell or transfer that gun to an individual, only to another NFA licensee or a governmental entity. So any way you look at it, the seller here is in violation of the law, and anyone buying the gun would also be in violation. Is it a BATFE scam to trap people? Maybe, or maybe it is just the ignorance of the sort of person who thinks others are ignorant. Jim |
June 9, 2009, 10:08 PM | #18 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
There have been rumors of Title I semis being built on the parts kits, although I don't have firsthand knowledge. What I think we see here is a guy buying a parts-kit semi, and then snagging an FA trigger group from another vendor, and not knowing what the term "constructive possession" means... |
|
June 9, 2009, 10:21 PM | #19 |
Member
Join Date: June 5, 2009
Location: Modesto, Califonria
Posts: 50
|
Collectable value by meens of the sort of gun it is, the STG-44 is a pretty rare find, even though its cut up and ghoulish looking I wouldnt mind owning one...Legally mind you. Have you spoken with that seller and shed light with him that the sell he is making may be illegal?...look the real reason for this thread to to ask if that was a decent price to add to my collection of WWII esk rifles, and weapons. I wanted to start a list with the firearms from that era from Number 1. to however many I should add to my collection.
__________________
If I owned those, my life would be set! <img src=http://www.panzergrenadier.net/images/g43/badass.jpg> |
June 10, 2009, 06:28 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 10, 2007
Location: Racoon City
Posts: 934
|
Quote:
The case, U.S. v. One FAL Rifle disproved this. This was a case in which a full auto FAL had the safety sear welded and cut off so that it could not fire full auto nor be easily converted with hand tools. The court found against the plaintiff (US government). F-Troop will not tell you this, and when you ask for an opinion, they will lie. But the precedent has been set in federal court. Now, whether you want to wave the proverbial red flag in front of them and take your chances is a different issue. They have been know to pursue criminal proceedings with their unlimited resources, knowing they will lose, but making a point and draining your bank account in the process. But the old saw, "once a machine gun, always a machine gun", has been struck down in court. With regards to this particular gun, there may be other technical violations. |
|
June 10, 2009, 07:11 AM | #21 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
Quote:
That'd be like owning an early push-pin HK-41 and a G3 "S-E-F" trigger group. "Constructive possession" all day long. |
|
June 10, 2009, 07:20 AM | #22 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
|
For what its worth, this is the reply I got... he was not happy in the least
What I wrote: Quote:
Quote:
I hope he doesn't get arrested though... Edit: I'd also like a bit of a clarification. You guys are tossing around the word "constructive possession" like it means possession of the parts necessary to "construct" and full auto weapon. I though it was originally a law definition for having possession of a item, without actually possessing the item. I can see how the two definitions overlap, I was just curious as to which one was more correct. Thanks. Further edit: He also changed the description, adding this bit: Quote:
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book Last edited by KLRANGL; June 10, 2009 at 07:37 AM. |
|||
June 10, 2009, 08:04 AM | #23 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 16,002
|
If the gun has BATFE approval, he's good to go.
The original wording of his ad was what set my spider sense tingling. You have to admit he made it sound like he's selling the gun, plus everything you need to make a buzzgun out of it. The thing everyone's been calling a "lower receiver" is a trigger pack, and is not the "receiver", as defined by the BATFE. I'd imagine, given the similarity of construction between the StG-44 and its lineal descendant, the G-3, that legal precedents established for the HK rifle would apply here. As long as adding the FA trigger group won't make it a buzzgun, there should be no legal problem, but you're out in a gray area with a lot of these parts kit guns that rely on BATF opinion letters. "Consrtuctive possession" means what you say it does, and has been used by the BATFE to describe the situation where one, say, owns an AR-15 and all the M-16 fire control bits. Even if they are not in the gun, the BATFE considers you to be in "constructive possession" of a machine gun. |
June 10, 2009, 10:46 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
|
Quote:
And if I had the money, I would have certainly added that to my collection. WWII weapons are like Pokemon. Gota catchem all...
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book |
|
June 10, 2009, 12:38 PM | #25 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
If you really want to see some fun, tell him you are forwarding his offer to BATFE to confirm his claim that the gun is legal!
Note that he never said the gun was BATFE approved, he said it is 922 compliant, which applies to the percentage of US made parts in a semi-auto rifle, nothing to do with the gun's status as an auto weapon. Tamara, those parts kits can be made into semi-autos by a licensed manufacturer, or even into automatics for demos or for LE use. But the parts kits don't include the receiver or (recently) the barrels, so he wouldn't have the original receiver. There is something very fishy here. There were a fair number of StG DEWATS sold in the early 1960's and I suspect someone got hold of one that was never registered and decided to make it "legal" by converting it to a semi-auto. That may not be done, as I pointed out above. The 1968 law required registration of ALL machineguns, including DEWATs which had been sold as "non-guns." If a DEWAT had been registered, it could have been reactivated to full auto by paying the $200 tax. Making it a semi would be very stupid. The seller here is either very ignorant, or playing games with his own and his customer's freedom. He is also very arrogant and nasty, characteristics that often go along with stupidity and ignorance. My advice is to give him a very wide berth. He already has given himself enough rope for a hanging. Jim |
|
|