Gun Hub Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
7,758 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just like a scene out of "Antiques Roadshow," a woman in Hartford, Conn., turned in an old rifle to her local police station's gun buy-back, only to discover the gun was worth anywhere from $20,000 to $25,000. The woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, inherited the gun from her father who had brought it home with him from Europe as a memento from World War II.
The two officers conducting the gun buy-back, who are resident gun experts for the Hartford Police Department, informed the owner she was in possession of a Nazi Assault Rifle, the first of its kind, that dates back to 1944.
The gun is called a Sturmgewehr 44, literally meaning "storm rifle," and is the first "modern assault rifle ever made,More
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
Not being an expert like many on here I have to ask where this weapon falls under the National Firearms Act?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Not being an expert like many on here I have to ask where this weapon falls under the National Firearms Act?
TooTall, the Sturmgewehr was a select fire weapon. If it is operational, it would definitely fall under the NFA. Now whether or not there was any kind of grace period for war trophies to be registered once that law was enacted, I just don't know. Nor can I say if the ladies father was able to legally register this rifle.

DEWATS (deactivated war trophies) are allowed...weapons that are rendered permanently inoperative by welding or cutting. If this one is a DEWAT, she's okay I think. The article makes you believe that it is in disrepair, but not deactivated.

Can she register it retroactively? Again, I don't know, but I don't think so (just a fountain of knowledge, ain't I? :rolleyes:). If it hasn't been permanently deactivated, I am pretty sure the BATFE considers it a fully automatic weapon as long as it is capable of being made to fire, which could cause the woman a bunch of heartache with the feds or even the local PO-lice. Pretty sure Connecticut isn't a class 3 state.

Oh, and despite the quote from the local police, Mr. Kalashnikov firmly denied that the STG 44 was the model for his AK-47. Others say hell yeah it was too. From what I understand, the STG-44 was a much more refined design than the stamped sheet metal AK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,499 Posts
There have been a number of media stories about this. One story indicated this gun was properly registered & everything but the woman was having trouble finding the paperwork.
If not then it is an illegal weapon and it is oing to be destroyed. In any case if it isn't in the national firearms registry it can never be owned by a citizen.

IrishCop said:
DEWATS (deactivated war trophies) are allowed...weapons that are rendered permanently inoperative by welding or cutting. If this one is a DEWAT, she's okay I think. The article makes you believe that it is in disrepair, but not deactivated.
The Thompson pictured in my avatar is such. It was actually part of a shipment of Thompsons returned from Russia. How'd THAT happen, you ask? During WW2 we provided Russia with Stuart Light Tanks, made here in the USA. As each tank left the factory it was equiped with a Thompson for a personal protection weapon in case the crew had to abandon their tank. If you know the Stuart Light Tank, if one ever met up with a German Panzer, there was a really high probability that the crew was going to be abandoning their tank .. . . . or dying. The Soviets however, didn't use the Thompson and packed them up in cosmoline to return them recently when they were discovered in an old warehouse. Upon entering the USA we had to :censored: destroy :censored: the :censored: receivers because of our :censored: laws regarding full auto capable weapons. But the other parts were assembled on dummy receivers ....essentially a "dewat" or a dummy gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
Irish and Tommy - thanks to both of you. You touched upon what I was questioning in my mind. While there are a lot of unknowns it does appear that this weapon might be destroyed. This would be a shame since it would be far better if it ended up with either a collector or a museum.

I searched a little and found that it uses the 7.92x33mm Kurz round and just out of curiosity found that these are still available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,991 Posts
I think the dewat guns are illegal now also. You can build a dummy gun like Tommy's but the guns that were just welded up are a no no I beleive. There is always the possibility I am wrong. does anyone know for sure?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,882 Posts
to all,

Despite what the BATFE so loudly says, they have NO JURISDICTION WHATEVER on lawfully imported WAR TROPHIES, which retain their importation papers under either DoW or DoD guidelines, to either the original owner of the WAR TROPHY or to his/her legal descendents by bequest or by probate of an estate. There is a federal court decision that says PRECISELY that.
(The case involved a 1907 Maxim gun that was entered into the USA in 1919 by a WWI veteran. The veteran died and left his MG to his grandson in his will in the mid-1960s, at which point the BATF attempted to seize the Maxim and "got their hand slapped hard" by a federal judge for "an obviously unlawful attempt to deprive a citizen of lawfully owned personal property". - that court order binds the BATF from another similarly unlawful attempt.)

Any competent attorney can find the court decision in less than an hour.
(I'm not an attorney but I'd bet that I could find it easily with access to the library of any law school.)

NOTE: I suspect, but do not know, that that court decision is WHY that importation of WAR TROPHIES are no longer allowed by DoD.

It is NO more complicated than this: the BATFE routinely LIES and goes around exceeding their authority in an extra-lawful fashion by BULLYING citizens, "creating regulations" to cover their "double-speak"/deceptions & burying you in needless/repetitive paperwork.
(Ask me sometime about my failed attempt to start re-manufacturing a "modernized" stainless steel H&R HANDY GUN and ITHACA AUTO-BURGLAR GUN in 20guage magnum in the 1980s. = You cannot get a simple/straight/TRUTHFUL answer from them on what they will/will not allow. My late attorney, a retired COL/0-6 JAG officer, finally gave up in frustration saying, "These people just are not honest & I don't believe that they will ever allow you to either build ot sell 'shot pistols' to the general public as an AOW." = I ended up spending a goodly pile of $$$$$$$ for no positive result.)

That is why is DISPISE the BATFE's "management".

just my opinion, sw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
I've got no clue as to whatever grace period might have been included in the NFA of 1934, but it wouldn't have stretched to a WWII war trophy. The GCA '68 had a six month grace period so that anyone who had somehow acquired an unpapered NFA weapon somewhere along the way could legally register it or surrender it without penalty.

I happened to be involved in surplus weaponry around that time and we had to become familiar with the law, Lord knows many of the feds were clueless. This isn't a slap at the agents, they'd had little previous experience with firearms, having spent the vast majority of their time chasing untaxed smokes & booze.

"Pemanently inoperative" in an elastic term. A great many DEWATs had a plug welded into the barrel. Apparently, few realized barrels are frequently removable [or, maybe they did, but the suits didn't:)]. This may have resulted in a change in status, depending upon the method of deactivation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
"Pemanently inoperative" in an elastic term. A great many DEWATs had a plug welded into the barrel. Apparently, few realized barrels are frequently removable [or, maybe they did, but the suits didn't:)]. This may have resulted in a change in status, depending upon the method of deactivation.
I can recall, circa 1960, that a guy published an article in The Saturday Evening Post, detailing how he had purchased one DEWAT StG 44 - with a welded barrel - from one source, and another - with a welded receiver - from a different source, then assembled a working gun with the functional assemblies from each. As I recall - and I was quite young at the time - the article spurred the desired (by the author and the publisher) crackdown on the commercial sale of DEWAT's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
Ah, but did it result in criminal penalties for the alleged journalist? Bet not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,104 Posts
Absolutely Not!

Ah, but did it result in criminal penalties for the alleged journalist? Bet not.
But, as I recall, he turned the gun in to federal authorities as soon as he completed his article. If my recollection of the date is correct, I was only 13 years old at the time, not living in the US and not particularly aware of firearm law. Perhaps the feds treated him as "confidential informant," as a pretext to decline prosecution. As I have suggested, I don't recall if those details were even covered in the article.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top