Are you a gun collector? Send this proposal to your reps


June 22, 2005, 01:10 PM
Section 1: This act shall be called the ‘Antique Firearms Act’

Section 2: The purpose of this act is to update and clarify the definition of ‘antique firearm’ in Federal law.

Section 3: Title 18 Chapter 44 Section 921 (a) (16) (A) US Code is amended by:

(1) by striking ‘1898;’ and replacing it with ‘1928;’

This deals with the definition of antique firearm in chapter 44 US Code

If you enjoyed reading about "Are you a gun collector? Send this proposal to your reps" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 22, 2005, 01:13 PM
how about " by striking ‘1898;’ and replacing it with ‘75 years old or older’

that way it doesn't need to be updated ever again

El Tejon
June 22, 2005, 01:20 PM
Zun, how about a decimal point between the 7 and 5? :D

June 22, 2005, 01:20 PM

Not a bad idea but my change is easier to make I think.

I will have to look at the statute again.

Any more ideas?

June 22, 2005, 01:30 PM
Here is the definition:

16) The term ''antique firearm'' means -

(A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock,

flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system)

manufactured in or before 1898; or

(B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if

such replica -

(i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or

conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or

(ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition

which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which

is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial

trade; or

(C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle

loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black

powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For

purposes of this subparagraph, the term ''antique firearm'' shall

not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or

receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading

weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily

converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt,

breechblock, or any combination thereof.

June 22, 2005, 02:32 PM

June 23, 2005, 07:25 AM
how about " by striking ‘1898;’ and replacing it with ‘75 years old or older’

that way it doesn't need to be updated ever again

Quite apart from the fact this is far too sensible a suggestion ever to make it into legislation it will never ever happen.

The 1898 provision is there as a placeholder for the birth of what I can describe as modern high-power rifles. Prior to that date black powder loads were the norm. Around 1898 the modern bolt actions like the Mauser and the lee-enfield were being developed and put into service using smokeless powder and developing then unheard of and inconceivable muzzle velocities.

Using your standard rifles like the 03-A3, a great many mausers, many SMLEs and a whole boatload of handguns firing modern ammo in 8mm, 30-06, 303, 9mm, 45 ACP will suddenly come onto the market and be unregulated by the bat boys. In a few years things like the Garand and P-38 pistol (which was in production as the P-1 until recently) also become unregulated.

While I would dearly love to see this, up to and probably including paying my right testicle for it, I don't think has a hope in hell as putting those firearms on the market unregulated would be political suicide in todays world. It's for the sheeple you know.

June 23, 2005, 12:57 PM
Political suicide?

I don't think so.

I already talked to my senator's offices about this.

They were very receptive. :)

June 23, 2005, 02:47 PM

It depends on where you live and on how much background your senator has in firearms history and dates of significant changes.

Given the constant prattle about the "Gun Show Loophole" do you think that the "75 year" loophole will be allowed to get created, let alone closed?

Taking the Senate as a collection of 100 people I doubt you will get 51 people to support this.

The last time there was any real change in the fortunes of gun owners was 1986 and that came at the cost of new MG registrations. Thst was 20 years ago and the only recent success, the death of the AWB, happend because congress needed to do nothing to make it go away. If they had to proactively legislate then it would still be on the books.

Frankly I think getting rid of the Hughes amendment is about as likely as this proposal in real terms.

June 23, 2005, 09:26 PM
My proposal says to simply changed '1898' with '1928'.

June 24, 2005, 07:50 AM
My proposal says to simply changed '1898' with '1928'.

Don't get me wrong in this, I really like your idea and I think it is a step in the right direction, even if it does not go nearly far enough.

Your change would mean that a Mauser sporting rifle manufactured in 1932 could be aquired with no background checks but an otherwise identical Charles Daly sporting mauser would have to go through a 4473. Or an 03-A3 could be bought off the shelf but a Savage in 30-06 couldn't.

This will not fly because there is no difference in form or function between the 03-A3 and the Savage. I can drill and tap the 03-A3 (the horror of it) and have a rifle every bit as good as its' modern equivilent with no paperwork.

So in that sense the change makes no sense. The logical conclusion would just be to rid ourselves of the '68 GCA entirely (which would be a good thing). This change would open the door for such a push to gut the '68 GCA on the basis of the form and function argument so it won't happen.

The only modern rifles that currently count as antiques are the early small ring mausers which are not known for their immense stength, unlike the later large ring mauser, which falls after the 1898 date. Ever wonder why the date on the law is 1898 and the large ring Mauser came out in 1898. This is not a surprising coincidence.

All the other catogories of difference are based on actual function. Muzzle loaders using black powder are not firearms regardless of when manufactured, so date is irrelevant.

Also most senators are not gun literate, particularly old gun literate. I collect C&R rifles and the oldest rifle I have is from 1920 something.

It's accurate and I can happily shoot modern 8mm hunting ammo through it. And yet there are people I meet at the range who ask "do you actually shoot that old thing." Errm, yes, and it can still shoot better than I can. I strongly suspect your senator thinks a 75 year old firearm is fragile, rare and on the verge of not being usable.

June 24, 2005, 11:07 AM
My understanding is that for legal and collector purposes antique is defined as an object that is 100 years or older.

To somehow claim that a desk, lamp, or bicycle made in 1901 is an antique but that a rifle is not is patently asinine and yet another illustration of how the law will happily fly in the face of objective reality if it benefits the state.

June 24, 2005, 07:29 PM
I emphasized these guns were mostly valued by collectors.

And the NFA still applies

June 24, 2005, 07:38 PM
How about we stop trying to play their sick game and move to repeal all firearms laws. Just a thought, I know. Insane as it may be.

If you want to collect firearms without going through an FFL you can easily obtain a Curio & Relic Federal Firearms license.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are you a gun collector? Send this proposal to your reps" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!