Look !!!! , antique status for guns made AFTER 1898

[Svartkrutt]

Perhaps some you guys knew this but it is news to me. I just got this back from the ATF.





FIPB@atf.gov



9:00 AM (2 hours ago)https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif



https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif





to me
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif












Thank you for your recent inquiry to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). This is in response to your email in which you inquired about the term Antique firearms.

As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(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
iii. 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.

The way this definition is to be read is that if the firearm was manufactured (e.g. made, completed NOT started production) on or before 1898, then it is considered to be an antique firearm. OR if the firearm is a replica (no matter the year it was manufactured) and the ammunition used is no longer available through commercial channels, then that firearm is considered to be an antique.

Based on your email, and applying the above definition, if you have a firearm manufactured in 1903 and used ammunition no longer available through commercial channels, then your firearm would have an antique status.

We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. Should you have additional questions, please contact your local ATF office. A listing of ATF office phone numbers can be found athttp://www.atf.gov/content/contact-us/local-atf-office

Regards,
Rinell Lawrence
Firearms Industry Programs Branch, ATF


From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:59 PM
To: FIPB Regulatory Email Inquiries <FIPB@atf.gov>
Subject: Question about antiques

Hello,

The way I read the following paragraph of the GCA is, If a particular firearm started production before 1898 and uses obsolete ammunition, it will have "antique status" no matter what year it was made. Are not all the firearms modeled after the first one "replicas", therefore a gun that started production in 1898 but was actually made in 1903 would have antique status if it still uses obsolete ammunition that is no longer available.

Please let me know if this is correct or the reason why it is not.


The GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16) defines the term "antique firearm" as follows:

(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.

Thank you.

[John Boy]

The way this definition is to be read is that if the firearm was manufactured (e.g. made, completed NOT started production) on or before 1898, then it is considered to be an antique firearm.
Yep, serial number dependent on the firearm: serial number pre 1898 = antique. Serial number post 1898 = "modern firearm"

[Svartkrutt]

Hello John Boy,

No. Read the next part that says "OR if the firearm is a replica (no matter the year it was manufactured) and the ammunition used is no longer available through commercial channels, then that firearm is considered to be an antique"

So if I have a 1894 Winchester that was made in 1906 as long as it shoots an obsolete cartridge it is an antique.

[labradigger1]

"Ammunition not readily available through commercial channels"
Hmmmm, so 22lr, 22 mag, 5mm rf and daisy VL ammo isn't readily available, methinks these should fall under antique status.
What about wildcats and their ammo?
I love loopholes.

[Geezer in NH]

That is why Navy Arms made the Henry rifle in the Henry rim fire 44. That has not been in production for so long. I see nothing new there.

The gun was sold without need of an FFL.

[NavyVet1959]

That is why Navy Arms made the Henry rifle in the Henry rim fire 44. That has not been in production for so long. I see nothing new there.

The gun was sold without need of an FFL.

But that makes you wonder what would happen if some ammunition manufacturer decided that there was enough of a market to start making that ammunition again. Would those reproductions then have to start being sold through a FFL?

[pietro]

.

Just because some small ammo maker decides to make .44RF ammo available, doesn't necessarily mean what the law reads: "readily available" - which I would take to mean that the ammo would need to be widely-disrtibuted, something (niche ammo) I doubt that very many funshops would order for shelf stock.


.

[Svartkrutt]

Labradigger 1 ,
The wildcat gun would have to be a replica of a gun made before 1898. So you would be better off to just use a Swedish Mauser made in 1898 and rebarrel it to the caliber of your choice obsolete or not.

[John Boy]

Ok, the original Colt MODEL 1877 LIGHTNING
Made from 1877 to 1909
Caliber- 38 Long Colt - ammunition is still made today
Are all 1877 Colt Lightning's made after 1898 classified as Antiques and not subject to FFL regulations of purchase per the ATF?

[MrWolf]

Wonder if the 32 long colt would apply? My Marlin was made around 1906 or so but the cartridge is not available. I believe even Winchester is not producing the shorts anymore.

[NavyVet1959]

The key issue is how they define "not readily available". Now, in the rules, it says "not readily available", but in their explanation they say, "no longer available through commercial channels". If only a couple of boutique ammo makers (e.g. Underwood, Buffalo Bore, etc) make ammo for a cartridge, would it be classified as "not readily available"?

The rules say, "which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade". So, there are two clauses here which are combined by "AND" so one must assume they both must apply...


"which is no longer manufactured in the United States"
"which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade"



So, without a definition of "ordinary channels of commercial trade", it is probably still a bit ambiguous.

[bob208]

so on the close ones. it comes down to how the guy with the badge reads it and if you have enough money for a good lawyer to change his mind.

b.a.t.f should be a convenience store not a government agency .

[plainsman456]

I would be real careful of doing something on what was said by someone you have not seen or know.

They have changed their mind about what words mean on a dime.

[Salmoneye]

Hmm...

This would make my S&W Model 1913 in .35 S&W Automatic an 'antique'...

[gnoahhh]

C'mon guys. This is the BATF we're talking about here. Why not play it safe and go through an FFL if any doubt whatsoever exists? Those guys have all the time in the world to screw with you if they catch you, not to mention the weight of the U.S. gov't behind them. Do you?

Saying "I saw it on the Cast Boolits forum" ain't gonna cut it with a Federal judge.

[NavyVet1959]

For ms many of us, whether a firearm is antique according to the ATF doesn't matter unless we are buying it from a FFL anyway since there are no restrictions on our FTF transactions.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I think that letter puts Svartkrutt in a safe position - for himself, and with that particular firearm. It is difficult to imagine them getting ugly about an action he can produce such clear evidenced that they have encouraged... surely? But I think it is based on a misinterpretation by the agent, and I wouldn't like to count on them all so interpreting the legislation, all the time.

Cartridge firearms are no problem, so A obviously gives its muzzle-loading examples without intention of excluding breech-loaders. But they key word is "replica". A gun made in 1903 would surely be simply a continuation of production - most likely uninterrupted, but I doubt if a short interruption of production should let anyone argue "replica" with real confidence. I can't think of any unequivocal example of a replica by the original manufacturer qualifying as antique. The second and third generation Colt SAA might, but for obvious reasons was only reintroduced for available cartridges. You might find the exemption applies to Smith and Wesson's reproduction of the Schofield revolver, which unlike the Italian ones won't chamber the .45LC cartridge.

I'm told, for example, that US Customs know that the Australian cadet Martini in .297/.230 does or can meet the 1898 deadline, but the Greener or BSA versions in .310 must postdate it. I think a pre-1898 Mauser rebarrelled would be pretty risky. Notice the use of the word "completed"? A restoration to original military condition might put you a lot better off than a sporterization for a non-original cartridge. That is if bringing logic to the problem has anything to do with it. There are reference books the BATF probably have, on serial number dates for firearms which straddle the deadline. These include Colt, Winchester and Marlin, but anybody caught out in that way should consult the major collectors' textbooks on the subject, since most remain inaccurate to some extent, and there are convincing arguments to be made. Numbers have been stamped on making the receiver, on completion or on dispatch to dealers, and manufacturers didn't have the modern aversion to large and long-term parts inventory. Collectors sometimes consider an unnumbered example to be a dishonest employee's "lunchbox gun". But one of those could as easily have been given a random number.

In the UK there are no restrictions on ownership or import of antiques, but that status is undefined by law. For many years the government, in its guidance for the police, used to rule out centrefire firearms altogether. In the late 1980s this was increasingly rejected by the courts, including my own defence of my Portuguese 8x60R Guedes. It was only one of many, but I had done the research, including numerous letters to reputable authorities, and the chief consultant to the government's consultative committee on firearms wrote:

"The case had thrown the whole issue of antique firearms wide open in that the Sheriff" (i.e. judge for petty-to-medium crime) "had not accepted the advice given in the Home Office Guidance. A year later, the secretary of the Firearms Consultative Committee asked me to submit a paper for the committee's consideration. My conclusion that many centre-fire cartridge arms could be considered as antiques found favour with the FCC."

The result was the concession of a long list of chamberings for non-available cartridges, for which any firearms made up to 1939, and still in the original chambering, would be considered antique. I believe I managed to argue some more onto a later edition, and something so rare as to be unidentifiable should be safe. It is both better and worse than yours. I can have 86 and 94 Winchesters, and do, with one being a late .32-40, but there is no 92 I can acquire by that route. An individual firearm would still have to be placed on a licence if it is to be used. But their only valid reasons for refusing are that one has no reason to use it, or that it can't be owned without danger to public safety or the peace. Already owning it cuts the feet from the latter of these. Simple modification of modern loading components doesn't seem to count, hence my .44 S&W Russian. They seem to have latched onto the fact that the concession isn't being abused, and has brought thousands of firearms from being passed from one schoolboy to another, into the hands of collectors.

For rifle (though not shotgun) ammunition the only alternative to case forming and loading is to have it entered on an appropriate licence by a registered dealer. But this has its advantages. Newly reintroduced ammunition has to pass through that accountable channel. It is only old, pre-licensing stocks that the unlicenced person might get his hands on. So there have been no cases of reintroduction of cartridge manufacture taking a gun off the list, and don't seem likely to.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Wonder if the 32 long colt would apply? My Marlin was made around 1906 or so but the cartridge is not available. I believe even Winchester is not producing the shorts anymore.

If your Marlin is a lever action it is probably the 92 like mine of very similar date. Even if it wasn't for the serial number, it was actually introduced in 1896, so it would be long odds against it predating 1898. I don't believe the takedown 97 was ever anything but a .22.

The 91 and 92 came with firing-pins for rimfire and centrefire cartridges, and at the time of the 91's inception at least, Marlin described it as being for the .32 Long and Short Rimfire, and the .32 Long and Short Colt. This was stated in their literature and on the envelope in which the second firing-pin was supplied.

As I said above, I think the fact that your rifle isn't a replica of an earlier model would catch you out, if they want you caught out. But if it comes to arguing on availability of ammunition, they made changes during its manufacture which might be of some use. I have a 1905 Marlin catalogue which describes the .32 Model 92 as being for ".32 short and long rim-fire, also .32 short and long centre-fire cartridges." The short rounds illustrated with it are the heel-bullet versions of the .32 short rimfire and .32 Short Colt. But the long rounds, both inside lubricated, are the .32 Long Rifle rimfire and, not the Long Colt, but the .32 Long Rifle centrefire.

The Long Rifle pair were developed around 1900, and have a slightly longer case to cover the lube grooves of a bullet slightly smaller in diameter than the rimfires. The bullet was given a Minié-style hollow base, the intention being that it would expand enough to engage with the rifling of old rifles, and the old round would swage down safely in new ones. I think both were true although I believe accuracy would be less than ideal in either case.

The old bullet diameter, never superseded in the short rimfire, is given by Frank Barnes as .316in. He also says the .32 Long Rifle was .313in., but I am inclined to doubt this. I have a Marlin table of 1909, reprinted by Col. Brophy in his book on Marlins, which makes the groove diameter .307in. to which my rifle conforms closely. I suspect that that was the diameter of the .32 Long Rifle bullet. The difference makes it rather more likely that it could be accommodated in the existing rimfire brass.

The .32 Long Colt, and perhaps the Short, made a similar transformation in about 1894. But I don't know if the .32 Short Colt did. Also it was to a smaller bullet diameter of about .297 or .298in. (due to the greater neck thickness of the centrefire case. The change is very well documented for the Long, both by Brandt and by White and Munhall, in their books, but not for the Short. It is likely that the old .32 Colt diameters would give poor performance in a 92 Marlin with the bore dimensions of the table, and pretty certain that the new version, if it ever existed as a Short, would do much worse. Most small defensive pistols were only ever fired at short to medium pistol range, ten feet or so, and perhaps as often never fired at all. But in a small-game rifle people would notice the deficiencies.

So if you were forced to argue, Marlin mention a substitute round, likely to perform either a little poorly or very, in a rifle they made for the pair of .32 Long Rifle rounds.

[Geezer in NH]

Ok, the original Colt MODEL 1877 LIGHTNING
Made from 1877 to 1909
Caliber- 38 Long Colt - ammunition is still made today
Are all 1877 Colt Lightning's made after 1898 classified as Antiques and not subject to FFL regulations of purchase per the ATF?NO ammo still available

[FergusonTO35]

Brass is available as CAS shooters and some revolver discplines use it.

[gnoahhh]

When I see such things written into the BATF regulations in black and white, I'll trust it. Depending on an agent's or department head's interpretation, not so much. Too much wiggle room for them, and none for me.

[MT Chambers]

I was told this same thing many years ago by C. Sharps arms, and it allowed them to ship a rifle right to me in Canada, no dealer involved.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I was told this same thing many years ago by C. Sharps arms, and it allowed them to ship a rifle right to me in Canada, no dealer involved.

Yes, but their rifle was a replica of a long-discontinued model. That is what would place them on firm ground.

[Blackwater]

Any time a private citizen tries to find a "loophole" in the law, and acts upon that assumption, he's responsible for having to defend his interpretation in court, and if the courts agree he goes free. If they disagree, which seems often likely, the interpreter goes to jail. I think the wise usually choose to avoid the possibility of prison, huge fines, etc., and just ask ATF. It's not difficult to do so, and if you print out the email like the OP did, I can't imagine any sensible person doing anything with you after getting such advice. Except maybe the IRS of course! But those folks are "special" in all sorts of ways.

[dverna]

Any time a private citizen tries to find a "loophole" in the law, and acts upon that assumption, he's responsible for having to defend his interpretation in court, and if the courts agree he goes free. If they disagree, which seems often likely, the interpreter goes to jail. I think the wise usually choose to avoid the possibility of prison, huge fines, etc., and just ask ATF. It's not difficult to do so, and if you print out the email like the OP did, I can't imagine any sensible person doing anything with you after getting such advice. Except maybe the IRS of course! But those folks are "special" in all sorts of ways.

Common sense!!!! Alas....common sense is all too rare.

[John Taylor]

The last time I had an agent in the shop I was informed that the internet is normal chain of commerce. You can get ammo for almost any rifle or pistol on line.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The argument to use against that is that the internet is a medium on which correspondence and payments are documented. Someone selling ammunition to strangers for envelopes of cash is asking for trouble, and saying online to strangers that he will do it is asking for it several orders of magnitude more forcefully.

[Geezer in NH]

But that makes you wonder what would happen if some ammunition manufacturer decided that there was enough of a market to start making that ammunition again. Would those reproductions then have to start being sold through a FFL?
Like that fantasy will happen ,sorry, 22lr is hard to find now I doubt anyone will ever make the 44 henry again. By the way an unopened box is worth more than a Henry rifle now.

But the way the anti's want it all will be FFL including ML's.

[Geezer in NH]

The last time I had an agent in the shop I was informed that the internet is normal chain of commerce. You can get ammo for almost any rifle or pistol on line.
His opinion not the legal dept.'s.

25 years of dealing with the ATF if is not in writing ask for it in writing. Many took the easy way and said my agent told me and complied right then.

Some of us said in writing please and then went and appealed to the legal dept and one. ATF is being enforced by fear of a minor agent IMHO.

[flint_knapper]

Just get your C&R and be done with it! good for 3yrs, cost is like 35
And they are turning them around fast nowadays, I here. (I'll find
out when I renew mine next year) nothing like getting them
'ol guns shipped to your home.;)

[MrWolf]

Just get your C&R and be done with it! good for 3yrs, cost is like 35
And they are turning them around fast nowadays, I here. (I'll find
out when I renew mine next year) nothing like getting them
'ol guns shipped to your home.;)

C&R is not available in NJ. State police do not recognize it. Can't wait for hopefully this time next year when I am out of here and going somewhere more American - thinking South Carolina.

[ironhead7544]

Seems like some 1886 Winchesters would fit into that spec, like a .33 Winchester.