doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com ATF redefining Antique

Smallbore has recently written in a UK trade paper about confusion and disorder in the ATF camp where 'Antique' firearms appear to have been redefined, if only by the ill-conceived explanatory notes.
Although I have no doubts that his comments are well founded, has anybody else been aware of this scary development and its local repercussions?
I travel into the USA with my stock of strictly pre-1899 firearms three times each year and I really do not need a run in with ATF to liven up my visit!

I think the term antique was defined as pre-1898 by the 1968 Gun Control Act. I'm not aware or any regulatory change to that, but that doesn't preclude an Executive Order of some sort...Geo

< https://www.federalregister.gov/document...n-storage-amend>

Geo:
I believe it's actually pre Jan 1,1899 as a cutoff date. I will see if I can find anything related to a change in the antiques definition.
Jim

Antique=made in 1898 or before.

"SUMMARY:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), largely to codify into regulation certain provisions of Public Law 105-277, Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999. The proposed rule would amend ATF's regulations to account for the existing statutory requirement for applicants for firearms dealer licenses to certify that secure gun storage or safety devices will be available at any place where firearms are sold under the license to nonlicensed individuals. This certification is already included in the ATF Form 7, Application for Federal Firearms License. The proposed regulation would also require applicants for manufacturer or importer licenses to complete the certification if the licensee will have premises where firearms are sold to nonlicensees. Moreover, the proposed regulation would require that the secure gun storage or safety device be compatible with the firearms offered for sale by the licensee. Finally, it also would conform the definitions of certain terms to the statutory language set forth in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, including the definition of �antique firearm,� which would be amended to include certain modern muzzle loading firearms."

New rule just adds modern muzzle loaders I think...Geo

I believe that you are all correct in your comments and Digs did take advice from a US lawyer on the subject who confirmed that the Explanatory Notes were being misconstrued by those who said that ALL centre fire firearms were now not 'Antique' regardless of age.
However it appears that there are US dealers and authorities who are reading it as above.
I really hope that your very powerful lobbying system can get this clarified ASAP as I don't wish to made an example of by some overzealous customs official or ill informed policeman.

To be clear, it looks like it is adding modern muzzleloaders to the antique classification thereby exempting them from the GCA of 1968, right?

This is the first I heard of this, but I doubt it would be to classify modern muzzelloaders as antiques, exempt from GCA of 1968. More than likely it is to classify them as "firearms" under the act. The act is a statute and can't be changed by ATF. It looks like they may intend to reclassify those that are not a precise copy of an 1898 gun as a firearm. A replica of a pre-1899 cartridge gun that fires fixed ammo, available in normal commercial channels is classified as a firearm( like a post 98 Win. 92). I suspect they are trying to twist this around to fit modern muzzleloaders, even though they don't use fixed ammo. It wasn't that long ago that some states tried to preclude "in line" muzzleloaders from primitive weapons hunts, if they used shotgun(209)primers. This is entirely different, because each state has it's own regs for hunting, having nothing to do with transfer of the guns.
Mike

Pennsylvania considers in-lines as modern weapons and all that applies to a modern weapon under the statutes. But an antique is still an antique.

Toby, I think if you look up history on this subject on this site you will find the proper explanation. It is easy to misunderstand and construe even by an attorney who does not read it closely. Center fire shotguns pre 1899 are still exempt. I don't recall the exact explanation but one of our members pointed out how it all makes sense. I would guess it was two pipes but not sure.

Gentlemen: ATF have no legal authority whatsoever with respect to the "antique firearm" category of firearm and cannot lawfully regulate the same, period. Rules and regulations promulgated by a federal agency are not law but are instead explications of federal law. No government agency can make law, or effectually do so by unilaterally exercising their regulatory authority. Without lawful authority to write law, no federal agency can change a federal law. However, government agencies are empowered by Congress to regulate. Rules and regulations promulgated must have a basis in federal law; otherwise, such would be baseless and thereby unlawful on its face.

Federal law establishes three statutorily defined categories of firearms we will broadly define as: (1) an "antique firearm," which is any firearm manufactured in or before 1898, i.e. manufactured before 1 January 1899, to include replicas thereof; (2) a "curio & relic firearm" is that manufactured at least 50 years prior the current date, but not including replicas thereof; and (3) a "firearm," which is the 'modern' firearm, by default any firearm not previously categorized and / or is also that respectively categorized as such in federal statutes. In practice, each of the three categories is a separate legal term.

Confusion arises when a reader of a federal statute simply interprets the legal term "firearm" as merely a generic term applicable to all three of the aforementioned categories. Such a simplistic interpretation is mistaken, however, when viewed from a legal perspective. Understand that before attempting to interpret any federal statute, the legal terms employed need defining, in order to avoid misinterpretations. Every federal title pertaining to firearms has sections with paragraphs dedicated to the definitions of the legal terms employed. The relevant legal terms here are "antique firearm," "curio & relic firearm," and "firearm."

Each firearm-related federal statute that mentions the legal term "firearm," regardless of whether the term is used in the text as a noun or an adjective, also has paragraphs or subparagraphs that define the legal term "firearm" as specifically excluding the legal term "antique firearm" from its legal definition. Thus, an "antique firearm" is not and cannot be interpreted as a "firearm" (whether the legal term is used as a noun or as an adjective.), or vice versa. This is why the "antique firearm" category is wholly unregulated, and it is precisely why ATF cannot and does not lawfully regulate the "antique firearm," irrespective of the fact the agency is authorized by federal law to regulate the two remaining firearm categories.

Nor does ATF regulate or exercise authority over the importation of an "antique firearm" from abroad. Because this noxious agency has absolutely no legal or regulatory authority with respect to any "antique firearm," they and their associated rules and regulations can be ignored altogether when shipping the antique within the U.S., or if importing a properly documented and authenticated "antique firearm" into the United States. U.S. Customs and Border Protection have total aegis over imported 'antiques,' of whatever nature or type, as that term (generally, the item is 100 years old or more) is defined by them.

An executive order cannot make law. Its lawful use is restricted to executing and / or implementing the law. The "antique firearm" category is unregulated because there is no basis in federal law upon which to base a regulation or rule. Again, this particular firearm category is excluded from any and all regulation by dint of controlling federal law.

We have previously written extensively on this and very similar matters elsewhere on this forum and on other fora, as mentioned above. Hopefully, the foregoing will answer some of the questions and concerns raised by the participating correspondents.


Regards,

Edwardian