Opinions on my Deactivated 1936 Luger

[Fla.Mallard]

I wouldn't want a gun that wasn't capable of doing what it was made to do and If I had one that "had" to be demilled, I would sell it or give it away to someone who could own it legally.

[RShaw]

As licensed collectors of fully functional firearms, we are always careful with embracing deactivated guns. We do not want to give any authorities the impression that collecting deactivated guns is a serious alternative to having access to fully functional firearms. From a research point of view, a deactivated gun is pretty much useless.

Very true Vlim, good point. My collection of deactivated guns will be limited to the two I mentioned above for the reason I mentioned above. (1 for each of my children). I have learned A LOT about the iconic and unique Luger through the experts on this forum, and from reading books on the subject, but also through the freedom we still have in the Netherlands to own and use functional Lugers in good condition- things I would never learn through being limited to deactivated weapons only.

[BAT340]

Id rather have no Luger, then a deactivated one. Sorry, just my feeling on it. I haven't shot my 1910 in 15 years, but at least I know it can fire.

[wlyon]

It's kinda like owning a car that has no engine.

[RShaw]

In the meantime I've been thinking more about "deactivated Lugers." I am not going to do that to my two. They, and my other permit required firearms will go to other collectors for them to enjoy, to pass on, and from which to learn. Dutch law is Dutch law.....

[tomaustin]

for those of you who say " i would not own one of those" are just a bit "uppity" in that you have a choice in the matter...given that he lives in a country that has no choice is disrespectful of both him and his collection.....i remember well the days of playing cowboys and indians with a stick for a gun....it is all i could have and i was enjoying what i had.....support him and his limitations of ownership...he didn't start this mess...just doing the best he is allowed to do......Tom

[Bill_in_VA]

I’m at a loss understanding how countries that have recently faced external oppression can so quickly and willingly and efficiently disarm their populace. Ireland gained its independence only a hundred years ago via internal populist resistance and it has been just a scant 20 years since the IRA agreed to decommissioning. Yet it’s damned near impossible to own anything other than a rimfire or shotgun, and even that is tightly regulated. 80 years ago England begged the US for arms, martial and civil to arm up against an expected invasion. Continental western Europe faced exactly that: invasion and occupation by a despotic foreign power. An armed populace helped keep the enemy off balance until liberation came. Western Europe tightly restricts firearm ownership to the point of absurdity. Have their governments learned nothing? Or is it that they so fear their populace? Either way, free ownership of firearms is one of the pillars of a free people remaining free from a tyrannical government. Preaching to the choir here, I know...

[RShaw]

Thanks very much for your comments Tom, they are much appreciated, although I didn't receive earlier remarks from Bill and BAT340 in a personal way at all. Actually, I know exactly what they mean, and my reaction is frustration more than anything else.

How to pass along an interest and respect for firearms to my children? I went through the process of getting a permit (takes 3 years before you can own, shoot and transport a maximum of 5 firearms up to .45 cal) and now have taken both children to the range and have shown them the ropes. My daughter is interested, and my son also, to some extent. On the other hand, I am one of 4 children- all of us were taught gun handling and safety from a very young age. Two of us have retained an interest, while the other two have no interest at all. Hmmm.

The question of national disarmament of course has occurred to me as well. Bill_in_Va, your point is well taken. People here (except for the small hunting/shooting and collecting communities) have, IMO, an irrational fear of weapons. Interesting that Switzerland has never been invaded and has a firearms culture which is not unlike that of the US. Also interesting is that Switzerland has a very low gun related crime rate.....

Here's a link with more information:
https://www.businessinsider.nl/switz...onal=true&r=US

One big problem seems to be the lack of proper training in the US; I myself certainly support the 2nd Amendment, but I also feel strongly that there should be more stringent storage regulations in the US, as well as a requirement for a proper background check, and documented completion of a carefully designed gun safety course which includes gun handling instructions.

When I tell people that shooting and firearms collection are two big hobbies of mine (I don't do this often at all, only with people I know VERY well) even then I have sometimes seen a reaction of "that's strange" or one of fear. I explain to them that I was very well trained as a child, and that, when one follows simple and clear protocol, and stores weapons PROPERLY (two locked safes secured to a wall, one for unloaded firearms and one for ammo and magazines) the risk of negligent discharge is minimal. Same as the preflight and landing protocols followed by commercial pilots. I support the point with stories from when I was a firearms instructor. Then the fear dissipates, and is replaced by a new appreciation.

But, as Bill_in_Va said, Now I'm preaching to the choir

[sdmark777]

Thanks for your comments as well RSHAW. But as an American I could not disagree more with your statement, " I also feel strongly that there should be more stringent storage regulations in the US, as well as a requirement for a proper background check, and documented completion of a carefully designed gun safety course which includes gun handling instructions." I understand your feeling that these types of regulations are sensible. Perhaps because of your indoctrination under the European Gun Control Laws. But in the U.S.A. all of these so called 'sensible gun regulations' are being used to diminish our gun rights and freedoms. In California there are regulations involving each of the things you mentioned. The anti gunners are using these kinds of laws here to advance their gun control and elimination efforts. Too much Government control. We all have the responsibility to use, handle and store our firearms properly. Just like all the other potentially dangerous tools we have in modern life, ie power tools, automobiles, etc. But in the U.S.A. we have the choice of keeping loaded firearms in our homes, vehicles and on our person for protection, hunting or any other reason. Firearms are not just for collecting, hunting and target practice. The U.S.A has been a culture of guns for all levels of citizens since the pioneers first arrived. Most of Europe has been a culture for some time now, where only the elite and few licensed citizens may posses firearms for collecting, hunting or target practice, but not for protection! European laws typically require all your firearms to be locked up unloaded and ammo locked up separately in your home. ie not kept for protection. My point is to try and educate you as to why we in the U.S.A. don't want the regulations you suggest. Those regulations are fighting words to me, a firearms enthusiast who understands that these seemingly 'sensible regulations' are just the means to erode and destroy our rights and freedoms. Death by a thousand cuts if you will. Since you are European, I don't take offense to your naivete, but your are dead wrong in your suggestion the U.S.A. should adopt such strict regulations. It is too late perhaps for England, Canada, Australia, Greenland and Europe, but not the U.S.A. ! Not yet at least. Sorry for the rant everyone, but it just boils my blood when someone here (in the U.S.A.) is ignorant enough to suggest these 'sensible regulations'. Best wishes to you RSHAW, I have no ill will towards you, just to what you propose. Mark

[ithacaartist]

Originally Posted by wlyon

It's kinda like owning a car that has no engine.

Doors welded shut, steering column cut, brake lines cut, fuel line plugged, u-joints welded together...

[sdmark777]

I agree with TomAustin. As to BAT340's statement, "Id rather have no Luger, then a deactivated one. Sorry, just my feeling on it." I only have live, original Lugers and have no interest in deactivated ones. But that is because I can and therefore do have live, original Lugers. I like MG 34's, MP40's and other historic machine guns. But in some States it is almost impossible to own them. Even in free States where it is legal to own live fully automatic weapons in original condition, the price is prohibitive, but for the wealthy few. So I have a deactivated Mg34, MP40, etc because I can't have the live original ones. If I lived where I could not have live Lugers, but only deactivated ones, then Yes, I would have deactivated Lugers. Point is, most of us can have live Lugers, the original poster can not apparently, like Tom pointed out. Mark

[Kiwi]

A deactivated gun (any) is not a gun
It is a very short iron bar

Likewise an unloaded gun is also a short iron bar

[RShaw]

Mark,
I completely understand where you're coming from; since I was brought up in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" and lived there between 1953 and 1984- during those key formative years when ideals and values are instilled for a lifetime. Since 1984, I have lived in Belgium and Germany- and now since 1991 in the Netherlands - and have had to deal with the far more restrictive gun laws here.

I completely concur with your point: We all have the responsibility to use, handle and store our firearms properly. The problem in the US is, too many people are not doing that!! Too many people who have no idea how to properly use, store, maintain and transport firearms are buying up guns for self protection, but who inevitably pose a danger to the public because they do not observe basic gun safety protocol, they leave loaded guns in places where small children (or people with nefarious purposes) can access them, and they themselves don't really know how to use them!

The parade of incidents of gun related violence, negligent discharge homicides, school shootings, etc, etc, in the US really depresses me. "What is happening to my country?" I wonder.
This is why I would favor better storage regulations, background checks, etc as stated above SINCE too many people are not being responsible!

There is a very fuzzy line / gray area between government control whose purpose is to restrict the rights of the individual in order to subdue a population, versus the crafting of regulations to encourage responsible behavior and keep firearms out of the hands of those who would purposely misuse them. Isn't this the real dilemma?

The anti gunners are reacting out of fear or ignorance, it seems to me, not unlike what I see here. However, I think they have a legitimate point when one considers the gun violence record of the US.

I am not an anti-gunner who wants to weld the bolt shut, cut off the sear, pull the firing pin, fill the barrel with lead, and weld the trigger to the frame. I am pro-gunner who wants to see the individual gun enthusiast respected and the prospective gun owner take the responsibility to educate him or herself on the safety protocols for handling, storing, and using firearms, as well as on the principles of basic marksmanship.

I know I'm ranting. I don't believe I've been indoctrinated under EU gun laws. But something has to change in the US. Something has to change here too.

[Bill_in_VA]

You cannot legislate responsibility nor morality.

[HerrKaiser]

“A deactivated gun is a short iron bar”

Or just an over-engineered and machined paperweight/hammer. (Remember that any object/tool is a hammer at its most basic function, and hammers still kill more people than rifles in the USA per year)

I agree with Vlim that as a collector and avid, active gun rights proponent, I do not want any relevant authority to interpret that I will ever be satisfied or content to allow them to restrict my rights of property and self defense in exchange for making the tools I own into fancy, over-machined paperweights. Much the same way that they would not accept my taxes paid in full as pennies which I melted down into a raw block of copper.

This is not to disparage the OP in any way, I grieve at your plight and govt situation that forced you to have to be content in collecting deactivated and brutally gutted/scarred pieces of history. If it weren’t for the welds, it looks like it was formerly a very nice example of a Luger.

[RShaw]

"You cannot legislate responsibility nor morality."

"I agree with Vlim that as a collector and avid, active gun rights proponent, I do not want any relevant authority to interpret that I will ever be satisfied or content to allow them to restrict my rights of property and self defense in exchange for making the tools I own into fancy, over-machined paperweights."

Good points both .... but now what?

Not easy at all. And the debate goes on.

[sdmark777]

Amen to what Bill_in_VA said, "You cannot legislate responsibility nor morality." That sums it up perfectly. As to your sentiments RSHAW, you are spouting the crap that makes my blood pressure rise. On the surface it sounds nice, we can make things better and safer etc. You need to look deeper at these issues. For example look at relevance. We drive cars and some people die in accidents. It is an accepted fact of life unless we give up our modern lifestyle and get rid of all motor vehicles. RSHAW states "The parade of incidents of gun related violence, negligent discharge homicides, school shootings, etc, etc, in the US really depresses me." But how many negligent discharges, firearm homicides, school shootings, etc are there really? Next to nothing when you look at all the other dangerous and/or deadly things happening. Lots of media hype on these kinds of events. You also need to look at who is involved in these cases of gun related violence. Gang members and criminals account for most of it. They by definition don't abide by the law and their lifestyle is often with out responsibility or morality. Suicides get lumped in with the gun violence stats as do justified police and civilian shootings. Suicides should not count for anything because firearms are just an expedient tool. People will always kill them selves, even if there were no guns. So as Bill said, "You cannot legislate responsibility nor morality." It is a people issue. Deal with the people having the issue. I don't think we should have any more of our rights infringed because some people misuse firearms or are not responsible or firearms educated. The loss of life and consequences from incidents of gun related violence, negligent discharge homicides, school shootings, etc, is next to nothing if you look at things in context. In a perfect utopian world these terrible things would be rare or not happen at all. It is natural for decent people to want this better utopian world, but reality is that some people are idiots, irresponsible, criminal, evil. When people screw up, deal with the screw ups, don't burden or punish the rest, the majority of us. Educate, make training available, enforce existing laws, bring attention to these issues when they are a problem. There are other better ways of dealing with people than legislation. It is the same as the assault rifle or high capacity magazine bans. There are already consequences for these people with firearms who act irresponsibly, negligently, ignorantly and criminally. Do you think we should have to take a test before we buy a power saw, because someone might cut off their fingers? Of course not. Why, because you can't legislate responsibility nor morality. Yeah, some dumb ass who never got instruction might use a power saw unsafely and cause himself or another grave injury. But again, insignificant amount of incidents to justify requiring a safety test or banning power saws to make life 'safer for all of us'. An example of trying to legislate responsibility: A Beach or a Park is having increased incidents of drunk and disorderly conduct, assaults and disturbances of the peace. Why, because there was an increase of homeless transients and drug addicts that began loitering in the area. These irresponsible, criminal derelicts get drunk and cause most of the problems. There are also ocasional parties that lead to a few drunks causing problems. To try and make things 'better' and 'safer' for everyone the City bans alcoholic drinks at the Beach or Park. Now regular citizens can no longer go to the Beach or Park and enjoy a beer or wine. The majority of citizens have lost their rights through no fault of their own, because of a minority of irresponsible asses. Instead the City should address the specific problem. Do enforcement against the screw ups, arrest the individuals for being drunk or assaultive etc. Increase enforcement as necessary to bring things back to an acceptable level. Again, relevance. Just because we will have an ocasional irresponsible drunk at the Beach or Park, it is a minor insignificant number of issues compared with the majority of responsible citizens that may choose to enjoy their favorite beverage at the Beach or Park. There are other ways to deal with the issue than trying to legislate responsibility and morality. OK, I have let off enough steam for now, you obviously hit a nerve. But, you, RSHAW, need to look deeper at the issues, look at relevancy before you want to give up your rights for expedient laws which can not legislatively produce responsibility and morality. Don't be ignorant and naive. Enough said. Back to LUGERS!

[RShaw]

Very true sdmark777, very true.
I have read your comments carefully, and yes, they are all very valid. I’m aware of the parallels to driving cars and disorderly conduct, but was not thinking of them when writing my earlier texts. Should a test be required before buying a power saw? Good point. Frequency of injury/death related to poor gun use versus that related to poor driving- good point.

The rights of the many should not be lost because of the irresponsible actions of the few.
I stand behind that 100%. Always did.

Looking at the issues more deeply, as you have rightly recommended, I recall the following point of which I was unaware when I first moved here:
Gun ownership and use is regarded here as a privilege granted by government rather than as an inalienable right of the people.

I’ll always be an American. But I live in a country whose culture is fundamentally different.
Thank you sdmark777.

[Kiwi]

Giving up the right and/or means to protect yourself makes you helpless
Making you helpless does not make bad people harmless

Gun safety says treat every gun as loaded.

[RShaw]

All true Kiwi.

However, I am not helpless. When I moved here, I gave up the right, as an American, to protect myself by means of a gun, since self defense using a gun is not recognized here as an absolute right.

I believe that there have been situations where a person under threat (e.g. a shopkeeper) has shot an attacker in self defense using a gun, where the shopkeeper was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm, and not for the shooting of the attacker. I can imagine a similar scenario where a person using a legally owned firearm would see a similar result- being convicted of the illegal transport of a loaded firearm, or of an unloaded firearm together with a readily available loaded magazine. (Both illegal here)
As for me, I transport my firearms with the understanding that they cannot be used in self defense. Unloaded, ammo separate, empty mags.
And yes, every firearm should be handled and stored assuming it is loaded.

I’m glad you folks are making me think. That’s good.
A Google search of “legal means of self defense in the Netherlands” yields some interesting results!