Antique or not Antique. That is the question.

TDizzle

TDizzle

Regular
Rating - 100%
68   0   0
Location
Canada
Quick question for you guys here!! You're the pros on this so to speak.

Firstly, I was under the impression that the new RCMP policy is that you cannot rechamber an antique to something that the gun never was. In English: If the gun was in 45 colt and was only produced in that caliber, you cannot re-chamber to an antique cartridge and unregister it.

So previously, you could obtain a pistol manufactured before 1898, have it rechambered in any modern centrefire cartridge (except the ones they specifically forbade) and it would be treated as an antique (basically making it non-restricted), however due to policy change brought around with the Swiss Arms/858 debacle, this is no longer the case.

So basically, the way I'm perceiving it, I'd have to find a pistol that a): was made before 1898, b): was produced in a cartridge that isn't specifically deemed "non-antique", that is also c): still available today.

I was also under the impression that if commercial ammunition is readily available to purchase for the firearm from your average gun shop, it is no longer really classified as antique, but rather a restricted weapon.

If I'm completely off my rocker with this, let me know!
 
I am not sure but you do see a lot of old webelys that were 455 now shooting 45acp and still be antique.i have seen a few colts done up to shoot the same 45acp in fact I am looking for one myself ,,,,,,,,.I have seen a few old 32 revolvers sleeved to shoot 17m2 shells ,,,I am sure there are a few guys here that can shed some light on this a little more then I can ,,Dutch
 
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...ntique-Firearm-Status-Determination-Flowchart

41colt has explained this in the simplest way possible ...... and it has been stickied here for a long time .

the change in rcmp policy has not changed the law .

the policy change is it simplest terms is this .

if you have a pre1898 handgun originally chambered with a round on the naughty list , they will not deregister it and make it a antique when rechambered / rebarreled to a chambering not on the naughty list .

there is no restriction for rebarreling or rechambering a pre 1898 handgun originally chambered for a round not on the naughty list .
 
Last edited:
I've looked at the flowchart, but it's from 2010 which predates the Swiss arm stuff by a lot...just looking for updated information on it. This is currently how we are operating and treating antique firearms at our firearm store as instructed by the CFO.
 
TDizzle said:
I've looked at the flowchart, but it's from 2010 which predates the Swiss arm stuff by a lot...just looking for updated information on it. This is currently how we are operating and treating antique firearms at our firearm store as instructed by the CFO.
Click to expand...

The policy change makes no difference to the flowchart. What Burnt-Servo posted is correct: "if you have a pre1898 handgun originally chambered with a round on the naughty list , they will not deregister it and make it a antique when rechambered / rebarreled to a chambering not on the naughty list ." Just use the flowchart to make sure you find an ALREADY ANTIQUE gun, or at least one registered but in a GOOD-TO-GO caliber, like .41 Colt for example, NOT .45 Colt.
 
41 Colt said:
The policy change makes no difference to the flowchart. What Burnt-Servo posted is correct: "if you have a pre1898 handgun originally chambered with a round on the naughty list , they will not deregister it and make it a antique when rechambered / rebarreled to a chambering not on the naughty list ." Just use the flowchart to make sure you find an ALREADY ANTIQUE gun, or at least one registered but in a GOOD-TO-GO caliber, like .41 Colt for example, NOT .45 Colt.
Click to expand...

+1 on this
 
Has anyone de-registered an antique recently. Its been a few years since I did my last. Any pearls of wisdom? I am going to have to do this soon when a recent purchase from the states finally arrives next week. Unfortunately the importer had it registered before it crossed the border, ugh. I was unfortunately reminded of the restricted CFC bureaucracy as they muddled/delayed with the transfer for a couple of weeks to decide if I had a club membership? Restricteds are such a pain in the bum.
 
TDizzle said:
Quick question for you guys here!! You're the pros on this so to speak.

Firstly, I was under the impression that the new RCMP policy is that you cannot rechamber an antique to something that the gun never was. In English: If the gun was in 45 colt and was only produced in that caliber, you cannot re-chamber to an antique cartridge and unregister it.

So previously, you could obtain a pistol manufactured before 1898, have it rechambered in any modern centrefire cartridge (except the ones they specifically forbade) and it would be treated as an antique (basically making it non-restricted), however due to policy change brought around with the Swiss Arms/858 debacle, this is no longer the case.

So basically, the way I'm perceiving it, I'd have to find a pistol that a): was made before 1898, b): was produced in a cartridge that isn't specifically deemed "non-antique", that is also c): still available today.

I was also under the impression that if commercial ammunition is readily available to purchase for the firearm from your average gun shop, it is no longer really classified as antique, but rather a restricted weapon.

If I'm completely off my rocker with this, let me know!
Click to expand...

Your post is not smart from the beginning. Here is a definition that you would easily find if you look for it:

Handguns:


  • manufactured before 1898 that can discharge only rim-fire cartridges, other than .22 Calibre Short, .22 Calibre Long or .22 Calibre Long Rifle cartridges;
  • manufactured before 1898 that can discharge centre-fire cartridges, other than a handgun designed or adapted to discharge .32 Short Colt, .32 Long Colt, .32 Smith and Wesson, .32 Smith and Wesson Long, .32‑20 Winchester, .38 Smith and Wesson; .38 Short Colt, .38 Long Colt, .38-40 Winchester, .44‑40 Winchester, or .45 Colt cartridges.
---------------------------
Thus, if you handgun was designed to discharge the "bad caliber" it will never become an antique no matter what you do to it (similar to prohibited handguns in .25 and .32 calibers). If you do stupid staff and adapt it to discharge the "bad caliber", you will ruin the antique status.

PS. If you have antique that was not designed to "bad caliber" and you rechamber it to another caliber that is not "bad caliber", it will stay as antique, e.g. 455 to 45acp
 
guess_kto said:
---------------------------
Thus, if you handgun was designed to discharge the "bad caliber" it will never become an antique no matter what you do to it (similar to prohibited handguns in .25 and .32 calibers).
PS. If you have antique that was not designed to "bad caliber" and you rechamber it to another caliber that is not "bad caliber", it will stay as antique, e.g. 455 to 45acp
Click to expand...

The problem with the definition is that some guns like the SAA were designed to shoot many calibers and yet those originally in 41 Long Colt are still considered to be antiques.

cheers mooncoon
 
What about the ones out there prior to this "policy change" that have an antique letter already in place but if processing today under this new policy would not qualify as such?
 
saddlehills said:
What about the ones out there prior to this "policy change" that have an antique letter already in place but if processing today under this new policy would not qualify as such?
Click to expand...

I am not convinced that policies are enforceable in law. In other words if the law says one thing and current policy goes beyond that, the police could potentially confiscate the gun and lower courts might or might not find you guilty on the basis of policy while higher courts would presumably find you innocent. No matter what the situation is, once you come to the attention of the law, it is going to cost a lot of money. The bottom line is to be discrete in what you say and do so that you do not find yourself in the position of having to prove your innocence

cheers mooncoon
 
mooncoon said:
I am not convinced that policies are enforceable in law. In other words if the law says one thing and current policy goes beyond that, the police could potentially confiscate the gun and lower courts might or might not find you guilty on the basis of policy while higher courts would presumably find you innocent. No matter what the situation is, once you come to the attention of the law, it is going to cost a lot of money. The bottom line is to be discrete in what you say and do so that you do not find yourself in the position of having to prove your innocence

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...

I completely agree , to add a few of my thoughts to this .....

what does the exact law say ? what has been the past practice of the rcmp ? and how does the current practice of the rcmp conflict with the past practice of the rcmp ?

if things do progress to going to court and a person has made a honest effort to comply with the actual law , things would have to go really wrong for a judge to find against you .

it is the rcmp that is flip flopping on policies that is potentially making paperwork criminals out of law abiding people .

but to even get to the point of standing before a judge , things would have had to go really wrong for a person .

I believe for the most part police officers and conservation / dfo officers are not on a witch hunt looking to financially devastate a law abiding upstanding person who happens to be packing a antique in the bush for a lawful reason of their choosing .

the biggest thing I see that can cause a huge amount of grief for a person is , is a younger or over enthusiastic type of person wanting to show off their latest purchase , and then someone making a complaint to the police .

keep it out of sight and it is out of mind .

the few people I have show my antiques to have also mentioned something to the effect ," is this legal ?" ........

rather than start to try to explain everything to them , just plainly state " I have all my paper work in order to legally pack this " . and it almost always ends there .
 
burnt_servo said:
what does the exact law say ? what has been the past practice of the rcmp ? and how does the current practice of the rcmp conflict with the past practice of the rcmp ?

if things do progress to going to court and a person has made a honest effort to comply with the actual law , things would have to go really wrong for a judge to find against you .

it is the rcmp that is flip flopping on policies that is potentially making paperwork criminals out of law abiding people .

but to even get to the point of standing before a judge , things would have had to go really wrong for a person .

I believe for the most part police officers and conservation / dfo officers are not on a witch hunt looking to financially devastate a law abiding upstanding person who happens to be packing a antique in the bush for a lawful reason of their choosing .
.
Click to expand...

The exact criteria is in one or more of the stickies at the top of the forum. What the RCMP have done in the past has been a lot more accepting of the gazetted law. Over the past several years, they have increasingly been narrowing what they will accept as antique and since they administer the law, what they say is what is done. Also while we keep saying the RCMP is becoming more limiting, it is actually the staff of the gun registry and in particular the technical staff who are actually making these decisions and the provincial firearms officers are enforcing them. All of these people are either RCMP or former RCMP (more or less) In at least some cases, it seems to be a case of the technical staff not wanting to commit themselves ---- a friend and verifier recently attempted to remove 2 pre 1898 32 rimfires revolvers from the registry. The official FRT sheets declares them to be antique but the firearrm tech was demanding photos to prove that the verification was correct. I feel that if a verifier says they are antique and the FRT page says they are antique, there should be little controversy that they are antique

cheers mooncoon
 
re your comments on judges being lenient because of policy rather than law, I think that is a faint hope. For the most part I think that judges will be anti-gun and very much pro police and accept the opinions and policies of the police testifying at the trial

]
 
mooncoon said:
re your comments on judges being lenient because of policy rather than law, I think that is a faint hope. For the most part I think that judges will be anti-gun and very much pro police and accept the opinions and policies of the police testifying at the trial

]
Click to expand...


I was thinking a guy might be able to make a case for very unclear direction from the rcmp . for decade, maybe more they did things one way , then all of a sudden they go to another extreme , without the actual law changing .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom