Why bother with an 03FFL?

Joined
Dec 2, 2021
Messages
3,344
City & State/Province
Indiana
I recently sold a 56 year old Ruger firearm to another forum member, who provided me with a valid copy of his C&R license.
My FFL dealer initially said he'd ship it to him "no problem." But, after a phone conversation with the ATF, was told that it absolutely was NOT eligible.
MY understanding is/was, that any firearm 50 years old or older, are eligible for shipping to an 03FFL...But, according to the ATF, that is not the case at all.
Anyone here have a similar experience, or an explanation as to why this supposedly is no longer acceptable?
I had such a license for 20+ years, and had all types of surplus firearms shipped directly to me. And, all that was necessary to do so, was my being present at delivery, and to provide ID, my license and my signature.
 
Nothing positive to add here ……. But stinks for sure.
I think the eligibility requirements are printed on the ATF website though.

I don’t doubt your FFL but ……. I’d check website and maybe call them myself.
 
anything older than 50 years is C&R eligible
I recently sold a 56 year old Ruger firearm to another forum member, who provided me with a valid copy of his C&R license.
My FFL dealer initially said he'd ship it to him "no problem." But, after a phone conversation with the ATF, was told that it absolutely was NOT eligible.
MY understanding is/was, that any firearm 50 years old or older, are eligible for shipping to an 03FFL...But, according to the ATF, that is not the case at all.
Anyone here have a similar experience, or an explanation as to why this supposedly is no longer acceptable?
I had such a license for 20+ years, and had all types of surplus firearms shipped directly to me. And, all that was necessary to do so, was my being present at delivery, and to provide ID, my license and my signature.
how do you know it was 56 year sold? The 50 year rules still applies and is unchanged. It needs to be original... If it had the safety conversion it probably would not qualify
 
right from the ATF sight


A regulation implementing federal firearms laws, 27 CFR § 478.11, defines curio or relic (C&R) firearms as those which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons.

To be recognized as C&R items, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

  1. Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas of such firearms;
  2. Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, state, or federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and
  3. Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event.
see above comment regarding the safety conversion....quoting again from the ATF web site....

How to obtain C&R classification​

Firearms automatically attain C&R status when they are 50 years old. Any firearm that is at least 50 years old, and in its original configuration, would qualify as a C&R firearm. I
 
anything older than 50 years is C&R eligible

how do you know it was 56 year sold? The 50 year rules still applies and is unchanged
Because the serial number dates it to 1970 per the Ruger website.
ATF was informed of this, but still claimed it was ineligible for shipment to an 03FFL.
And I'm NOT arguing that it wasn't eligible per the ATF website. That's why I'm asking why it was for some reason deemed ineligible? 🤔
 
Last edited:
Because the serial number dates it to 1970 per the Ruger website.
ATF was informed of this, but still claimed it was ineligible for shipment to an 03FFL.
And I'm NOT arguing that it wasn't eligible per the ATF website. That's why I'm asking why it was for some reason deemed ineligible? 🤔
was it converted ? completely original ? If unconverted and original the n AFT screwed up
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
You’ll likely never know why.
But I gotta say in all my years of having an 03 it never ceases to amaze me how insanely difficult an 01FFL and ATF field agents try to make it. And. It just could not hardly be easier.

01s can say some of the dumbest stuff ……. At least about the C&R.
 
Anyone you can get to answer a phone at ATF and give succinct, quick opinion on this or any other technical matter is not smart enough to bother with (answering phones, after all). IME, ATF will hem and haw for months before providing a non-answer. I suspect one of two things happened:

-your dealer lied about calling the ATF and didn't want to deal with shipping to an FFL03
-the ATF agent said Ruger's s/n lookup is not definitive for IDing date of manufacture, and your FFL didn't feel like dealing with it

The correct answer would have been to follow the law and ship the eligible firearm without contacting ATF about a legal FFL-to-FFL transaction.
 
100% original and unconverted OM Blackhawk.
Yes. The ATF got it wrong IMO.
Just wanted to know WHY it was determined to be ineligible to ship to an 03FFL?
Why? Because ATF, like IRS, has some (many?) employees who are fixtures collecting paychecks who knew barely enough to get the job and maintain just barely enough to keep the job. My mother, with an 8th grade education (had to quit school and work during the depression) did all the books for my father's medical practice. She knew more and better of tax rules and law than virtually every IRS employee. Her random audit experience with them (home before lunch after being told what mountain of paperwork to bring and plan on at least 2 full days auditing) and no other audit in over 40 years after that (doctors audited once every 6-7 years, then at least) proved it. Ask 4 random (ATF, IRS, another agency) agents the identical question and you'll get 5 different answers.
 
I believe this is incorrect. Do you have any documentation to back this up?
It's correct. The Trump Dept of Justice will not prosecute this although the typical commie states are appealing. Lots of backup Google it. The formal process is summarized below. As it says it will take a while but since the DOJ is not prosecuting, an individual can and should ship







Lawful gun owners may soon be able to ship pistols through the mail.

On Wednesday, the United States Postal Service (USPS) released a new proposed rule in the Federal Register that would reclassify handguns as “mailable” under its regulatory standards. The USPS said the change was necessary to conform with a recent Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) guidance that found the restrictions violated the Second Amendment.

“The Postal Service defers to OLC’s judgment as to the lawful scope of this criminal statute and worked in consultation with OLC to develop the proposed revisions to our mailability regulations,” an unpublished version of the proposed rule reads. “The proposed revisions expand the scope of mailable firearms compared to the existing regulations by allowing lawful handguns to be mailed under the same terms and conditions as lawful rifles and shotguns.”

The proposed rule represents a victory for gun-rights advocates, who have been active both in challenging existing mailing restrictions in court and in pressuring the Trump Administration to do more to advance Second Amendment rights. In practical terms, it could soon make it easier for regular gun owners to transport the most commonly owned type of firearm.

For nearly a century, federal law has largely barred the mailing of handguns and other “concealable” firearms through the USPS for most citizens, with limited exceptions for law enforcement service or licensed dealers and manufacturers. Most private carriers, meanwhile, have since adopted their own policies of refusing to ship firearms for private citizens. That has left gun owners wishing to send and receive handguns reliant on licensed dealers to act as shipping middlemen, often for an additional fee.

Under the proposal, “lawful” handguns would be removed from those restrictions while other “concealable” firearms, such as those regulated under the National Firearms Act, would continue to be classified as “nonmailable” for non-authorized entities.

The proposed change comes after Gun Owners of America (GOA) challenged existing federal handgun mailing restrictions last July in a case called Shreve v. USPS. Ben Sanderson, the group’s deputy director of federal affairs, told The Reload that the proposed rule does not go far enough because it does not extend to short-barreled rifles or suppressors. He added that the group would continue pursuing its lawsuit.

“Gun Owners of America has only preliminarily reviewed the proposed rule, but we do not believe it delivers a full victory for the Second Amendment, as our lawsuit Shreve v. USPS intends to,” he said. “This latest proposed USPS rule would allow handguns to be mailed through the postal service, but spins a complex web of regulations with which gun owners must comply.”

Six months after GOA’s suit was first filed, the Justice Department OLC issued a memorandum opinion that sided with the group’s position, at least as applied to handguns.

“Section 1715 of title 18, U.S. Code, is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected firearms, including handguns, because it serves an illegitimate purpose and is inconsistent with the Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation,” Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote in the January opinion. “The Department of Justice may not, consistent with the Constitution, enforce section 1715 with respect to constitutionally protected firearms.”

Gaiser’s opinion also honed in on the practical difficulties that current mailing restrictions can have on handgun owners, including possibly exposing them to legal jeopardy when they travel. He noted that somebody flying from California to Vermont with a properly stored and declared handgun, but who got diverted to New York City, could be arrested for illegal possession if they took possession of their checked luggage. He also said someone driving from Wisconsin to Michigan who stops in Chicago for two days with their gun could also face arrest since federal traveler’s protections only apply to continuous trips.

“In these cases (and many others like them), a person has no ability to travel with a firearm, leaving shipment of the handgun to a destination as the only viable method of transportation,” Gaiser wrote. “But the person cannot use a common or contract carrier to ship himself the handgun because, currently, the large common carriers that deliver parcels refuse to ship firearms for private citizens. And section 1715 forbids mailing the handgun. The Postal Service’s ban on mailing handguns thus stifles the legitimate transportation and carriage of handguns for self-defense or any other lawful purpose.”

The proposed rule is not yet a formal legal change. Once published, the USPS will first have to accept public comments on the proposal. The agency encouraged commenters to focus on implementation issues rather than on the legal merits of the rule change.

“As noted, the Postal Service defers to OLC’s judgment as to the lawful scope of this criminal statute and worked in consultation with OLC to develop the proposed revisions to our mailability regulations,” the proposal reads. “Comments regarding the merits of OLC’s opinion, including the scope of firearms that are mailable and nonmailable under the Second Amendment, are therefore outside the scope of this rulemaking. Comments on all other aspects of the proposed changes, and in particular the clarity and understandability for users of the mail, are appreciated.”

After the public comment period ends, the Postal Service will review and address the input it received before issuing a final rule with an effective date. The process will likely take months to complete.
 
Because the serial number dates it to 1970 per the Ruger website.
ATF was informed of this, but still claimed it was ineligible for shipment to an 03FFL.
And I'm NOT arguing that it wasn't eligible per the ATF website. That's why I'm asking why it was for some reason deemed ineligible? 🤔
Is that firearm configuration/model still being manufactured by Ruger?
 
I've had an 03 FFL for twelve years now. I've used it for two guns in that time. I keep it because it's easier than getting rid of it.

I had an 01 FFL for decades until I moved to Pittsburgh and when I moved the license I found that my borough added burdens that I didn't want to deal with.
 
Back
Top