When was 1898 set as the "not a firearm" cutoff?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a side note, what do you think the law would be if you carried a pistol made in 1897 concealed in a place that you normally wouldn't be allowed to carry?

Although there is a list of specificly named weapons, TN "going armed" statute has a catch-all: basically carry with intent of offense or defense can make anything a weapon. It's not the definition of the thing carried, its the intent of the carrier that makes the offense.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
Only those manufactured before 1898.

My own Krag is a Model 1898 and would not be eligible.
Again, I believe the law says any firearm manufactured in 1898 or prior.

This would make any firearm manufactured on or before December 31, 1898 an "antique" under the law.

Read it for yourself.
 
Which would exclude a Model 98 manufactured in 1901.

Most military firearms are not manufactured in the model year -- the M1911, for example, was first manufactured in quantity in 1912.
 
"firearm" has a special meaning in federal law

"Firearm" in the context of the 68 GCA is a "firearm" subject to Title I federal sales and transfer regulation as distinct from a 34 NFA "firearm" subject to Title II federal sales and transfer regulations.

A gun made in 1898 or earlier is an antique gun not a legal "firearm" for Title I purposes (FFL form 4473 transfer of rifle, shotgun or handgun).

It is still a firearm as far as common usage is concerned.

A Mauser Construction 1896 (C96) made before 1898 is an antique. A C96 made before 1946 with a new or authentic repro stock is a Curio & Relic Title I handgun. A C96 made after 1946 with a shoulder stock is a Title II Short Barrel Rifle (SBR). For most state and local weapon carry laws, they are all weapons.

Status for sale and possession regulation does not affect laws on usage.
 
Most military firearms are not manufactured in the model year -- the M1911, for example, was first manufactured in quantity in 1912.
I'm aware of that, but it was my understanding that the US Army was using Krags during the Spanish_American War in 1898. If that is so, any rifle used in that conflict would have been built prior to 1899. So, a lot of the Krags at the CMP would not be "real" rifles.
 
So how many government regulations have any basis in fact or logic? Somebody was probably told to pick a date, in 1968 1898 was 70 years ago, that seemed like a good date to set the requirement for an "antique".
 
And, if you have a Model 1898, you have to check the serial number to see if it qualifies.

The same is true of the Colt New Service. It came out in 1897, but mine was made in 1906 and doesn't qualify.
 
I thought there was a clause that stated that "antique" firearms could not be chambered in or be made to chamber and fire modern ammunition. That would mean that a Colt SAA in .45 Colt made in 1880 is a firearm, but a revolver in .44 rimfire made the same year is not.

Isn't there also a part about black powder firearms and replicas of antique designs being exempt from most laws that regulate modern cartridge arms? IIRC this is the reason you can buy them without the paperwork associated with modern cartridge arms.

Making the distinction between firing modern ammunition vs. loose black powder/obsolete cartridges makes more sense to me than any "special" date like 1898. Going by the date system it is entirely possible to have two models of the exact same gun, like a .30-40 Krag, one produced in 1897 and one in 1899, that fall on opposite ends of the law.

Also, what are the laws regarding modifying antique firearms? If you wanted to, could you cut a 12 ga. coach gun made in 1897 down to 14", without the NFA paperwork?
 
Far as I understand, you are not permitted to cut down any Cartridge Shotgun or Cartridge Rifle, past the limits set by the BofATF&E, regardless of when it was made.


But, yeahhh, the 1898 date does exclude the majority of 'popular' cartridges.


.22 Short, .22 long, 32-20, 38-40, 44-40, .44 Russian, 45 Colt slipped through, far as Hand Gun Cartridges, but, pretty well everything else, did not...and, at the time, none of these were 'popular' enough to likely count for much in the minds of whoever drafted the writ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top