Regular Luger and Artillery Lugers

[A. F Medic]

I missed out on buying a original Luger stock by being out bidded. Then I did some research when I got home and found out that if you put a stock on a "regular" Luger, you then have a SBR or short barrelled rifle. ATF really,really frowns on that!!!

It appears that you put an original or reproduction stock on a on a artillery luger, you should be ok. However, do not let my reading of the law be cast in stone.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Johnny Peppers]

You are correct. Either a real or repro stock is only legal on a Luger which was originally issued with a stock. In the German military Lugers, only the 6" Navy and 8" Artillery were ever issued with a shoulder stock.
On the Navy and Artillery the stock was never used alone. It was attached to the holster, and the holster and stock were used together. The rig was carried slung over the shoulder by straps rather than being in a holster fastened to the belt.

[villiers]

No! The police used the P08 with the stock after WWI. There is photographic and written evidence for this.

[Johnny Peppers]

There may have been an isolated incidence of a shoulder board being attached to a 4" Luger, but none were issued for that purpose, and the law is very plain about what Lugers are legal with a shoulder stock.

[villiers]

But they were issued and in permanent use on the (short) P08 with German Police Forces in the years after WWI.

PS
Is there a case on record of a North American citizen being prosecuted for attaching a standard issue stock to a P08 (`Luger´)? Or is this just another ludicrous case of jobsworth one upmanship?

[Johnny Peppers]

But they were issued and in permanent use on the (short) P08 with German Police Forces in the years after WWI.

PS
Is there a case on record of a North American citizen being prosecuted for attaching a standard issue stock to a P08 (`Luger´)? Or is this just another ludicrous case of jobsworth one upmanship?

I'm sure you have references to the German Police Forces permanent use of the shoulder stock in the years following WWI?

I have absolutely no idea whether there is a record of prosecution on attaching a shoulder stock to a "Luger" (all Lugers were not P.08's), but that has absolutely no bearing on whether it is law or not.

[villiers]

I'm sure you have references to the German Police Forces permanent use of the shoulder stock in the years following WWI?

I have absolutely no idea whether there is a record of prosecution on attaching a shoulder stock to a "Luger" (all Lugers were not P.08's), but that has absolutely no bearing on whether it is law or not.

I do! I can quote a number of German language authors on the subject who also provide photographic evidence of Berlin police in formation, shooting the (short) P 08 with the stock attached.

And I am sure that you also know that bureaucracy the world over produces petty and ludicrous legislation that no public prosecutor would dare to take to court. Like most Luger owners, I have been following the discussion on the web and and it reminds greatly of what Germans tend to call `vorauseilender Gehorsam´ (an anticipated act of obedience).

If The ATF does indeed stipulate that only Lugers that were originally issued with the stock can today legally be used with the stock attached, it would seem only logical to look for and find examples of official usage that would satisfy the ATF. It is sad that so many people who profess to be knowledgeable on this subject appear to take pleasure in acting as the cohorts of petty officialdom.

[jkaler48]

If you can get some good evidence of German police use like photos and written records nd book citation you can get the ATF to add the appropriate Lugers to the allowed with stock list. It would probably have to be specific ones perhaps 1920 double dated Police marked. Recently some Finnish Lugers (but not all) were exempted by the same process.

[Patrick Chadwick]

In case any of you guys do not know the German word "Schadenfreude", this correspondence provides a perfect example - namely me rolling about laughing that other countries also have ludicrous regulations.

Johhy Peppers wrítes "the law is very plain" - but in which country? Once again, I beseech all forum members to include the country where they live in their info. Anyway, regardless of where you live, the typical legislation differentiation between rifles and handguns is based on the potential threat as given by 1)rapid fire/automatic capability 2) ease of concealment.
Aspect 2) is, for instance, linked in Germany to the regulation that it is forbidden to shorten a rifle (or shotgun) so that the overall length is less than 60 cm. But even the most passionate legislators here have not (yet!) had the idea that lengthening a weapon increases the ability to conceal it. In other words, a pistol or revolver plus buttstock is no more of a hazard than without such an attachment. So a handgun that is already covered by the existing heavily restrictive legislation does not require re-evaluation if it is fitted with a buttstock.

However, once such rules have to be interpreted, they come under the whims of people who, unfortunately, do not have a clue what they are talking about. It seems that in the case being discussed here, someone has confused lengthening a handgun with shortening a rifle. Once that has happened, common sense is completely lost.

As the P04 and P08s (commonly known as "Lugers) - all (?) models were built to take shoulder stocks, but I doubt that every example of the navy and artillery models was actually issued with a number-matching stock throughout the production life. So the most extreme interpretation of the rule mentioned at the start of this correspondence would be that only P04s or P08s with number-matching stocks would be legal. And, of course, that all Colt and other blackpowder revolvers fitted with a buttstock are illegal!

Barmy, of course, but that is what happens in a field where the rules are made by people with no proper knowledge, or a political agenda, or both!

Patrick

[Johnny Peppers]

[QUOTE=
Johhy Peppers wrítes "the law is very plain" - but in which country? Once again, I beseech all forum members to include the country where they live in their info. Patrick[/QUOTE]

Read the first post where the ATF is mentioned. The ATF or BATF is a United States firearms law enforcement agency. Whether dumb, silly, or whatever you choose to call it, it is still the law in the U.S.