Antiques - "no modern chamberings"....???????

H Wally said:
For asking the techs and verifiers, I'm going to ask a few of them, and get it in writing. I find if they're talking out of their butt they'll refuse to provide a written statement :p We shall see.
Click to expand...

My bet is that you will not get it in writing. I wrote and asked if the definition of a rifle was that the barrel was rifled (and a long gun of course). I got no answer back. My reason was that there are shotgun guage chambered rifles around. Guns which look like double barrel shotguns but are rifled full length and have rifle sights on them and intended for shooting guage caliber slugs. (not modern rifled shotgun slugs). If the gun is classed as a rifle, it is an antique. If it is classed as a shotgun because you can discharge shotgun shells with shot (ineffectively) through it, it is a modern shotgun.

cheers mooncoon
 
Lee Enfield said:
The old rules said that, C.68 actually spelled out what antiques are deregisterable.
The old law simply said words to the effect of "antiques are chambered in cartridges which are not commonly available" this kind of left it open ended, how do you define how available a cartridge is?
Click to expand...

So what you're suggesting is, many gunsmiths are operating under the old law?
 
DANCESWITHEMPTIES said:
Here is a cartridge chart that I will not contest its accuracy, but have kept on file for a while as a guide line to part 7 of SOR/ 98-464: http://yarchive.net/gun/ammo/cartridge_interchange.html I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the interpretation specific to part 7 reads pretty easy. IMO it is cartridge specific. The catch and the grey area is the quote: "other than a handgun designed or adapted to discharge" those mentioned cartridges in part 7.
To muddy the waters even more, read part 5: To me this reads that if I built an adapter to fire 20 ga. shells out of a 14 ga. shotgun, I will be contravening that part of the law. But if it just so happens that a 14 ga. can fire 16 ga. shells without adaptation or alteration, it is no longer an antique as well. I know this last paragraph is off topic from the original post. But to me, it shows the ambiguity of how the regulations are written from section to section.
I think the only way, unfortunately, that you will get a steadfast clarification is through the courts. And I'm not the guy willing to do that! I work in an industry where the manuals that I use for certification are filled with so much ambiguity, as to relieve the manufacturer from liability. I believe the law is written for this same manner. Finding a clear answer to the original poster's question will be next to impossible here, if not in court, from case to case that may or have already been brought forward to them.
Click to expand...



That chart is not completely correct. While cases may be correct, it states that 38 short colt and 38 long colt may be fired in a 38 spl. The colt calibers used heeled bullets of a larger diameter and while they will chamber, they are much too large to pass safely down the bore. I'm sure there are more issues but I'd need to think too much.... ;)
 
I'm not an expert, I believe the Short Colt started out as a heeled base bullet, but the Long Colt used a .357-.358 conventional bullet. Regardless, as I stated before, I would not vouch for it's accuracy.
Heard ya bought a few antiques at the last auction...:D Drop a p.m. when you get a chance.
 
Criminal Code (R.S., 1985, c. C-46)
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/

“antique firearm”
« arme à feu historique »

“antique firearm” means
(a) any firearm manufactured before 1898 that was not designed to discharge rim-fire or centre-fire ammunition and that has not been redesigned to discharge such ammunition, or

-------- AND IF IT IS DESIGNED TO BE RIM/CENTER FIRE THAN (b) APPLIES -------

(b) any firearm that is prescribed to be an antique firearm; (We all know what is that, don't we)

---- READ MORE ----

RCMP Prescribed Antique
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/antique-historique-eng.htm
(and they refer you to:)
Regulations Prescribing Antique Firearms (SOR/98-464)
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-98-464/page-1.html


----- AND THEN READ MORE -----

Firearms Act (1995, c. 39)
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/f-11.6/


Confusing as hell....
 
Last edited:
Lee Enfield said:
The old rules said that, C.68 actually spelled out what antiques are deregisterable.
The old law simply said words to the effect of "antiques are chambered in cartridges which are not commonly available"
Click to expand...

I am not sure how accurate that is; I wrote to lawyer Richard Fritze a number of years ago when he was active in the NFA and asked what section of the criminal code said that. His answer was that he was unaware of any section that said that. Since it was a commonly believed definition, I think it may simply have been a policy within the RCMP who handled the registry.

cheers mooncoon
 
H Wally said:
So what you're suggesting is, many gunsmiths are operating under the old law?
Click to expand...

This would be my guess. Not many gun guys at all know about antique guns or their laws. I have a buddy who hunts who was blown away by the antiques I own (and the fact they require no registration).

Someone on here posted about a range operator having no idea about antiques and accusing him of bringing unregistered handguns to the range.

There was another one where a forum sponsor got into an argument with a member for wanting something done to his antique and the sponsor insisted it must be registered if he were to fire it and wouldn't touch it.

I think in your case Wally, no matter how much you respect your 'smiths they simply do not understand the laws. Antiques are such a little niche area.

I have run into this before while asking a supposedly amazing 'smith about putting a 4.2" barrel on a Walther PPK and was promptly told "It cannot be done under any circumstances".
 
IMHO it is better to keep quiet and only request letters and deregistration as required. I have several in the works of being rechambered to enable deregistration. One required a new FRT as a restricted as it is the first of it's kind in that particular caliber.
 
fiscus said:
Read and understand the law and you will have no problems, there is no need to ask the RCMP to spell things out.
Click to expand...

My reason for asking was because I have read the law and yet am running into the same "misinformation" from otherwise incredibly well informed and trustworthy people, hence my confusion. My conclusion to this thread is that they're either A) operating under very old laws or B) using it as a simple answer for not wanting to explain why they don't want to do the work.

tactical870 said:
IMHO it is better to keep quiet and only request letters and deregistration as required. I have several in the works of being rechambered to enable deregistration. One required a new FRT as a restricted as it is the first of it's kind in that particular caliber.
Click to expand...

Definitely. In this case asking the CFC would also serve to eliminate the possibility that the CFC was trying to pull a fast one on antique owners by changing their internal policies without telling anyone. In any event, I got my answers without having to contact them.
 
You need to read the Criminal Code. Not just the FA.
"The Criminal Code defines antique firearms as:
•firearms manufactured before 1898 that were not designed or re-designed to discharge rim-fire or centre-fire ammunition...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."
 
6. A handgun manufactured before 1898 that is capable of discharging only rim-fire cartridges, other than 22 Calibre Short, 22 Calibre Long or 22 Calibre Long Rifle cartridges.

So 22 magnum is a go?
 
The Gunsmiths I have talked to about it have explained it to me as such. "it's not really illegal but it is a grey area and there is too much confusion in law enforcement and I don't want an uneducated LEO knocking on my door and shutting me down until after a court decision"

Honestly in their position I would probably do the same, I love my antique but I'm not interested in being the guinea-pig and footing the bill for a legal battle that might end badly for all of us.
 
LomondK said:
The Gunsmiths I have talked to about it have explained it to me as such. "it's not really illegal but it is a grey area and there is too much confusion in law enforcement and I don't want an uneducated LEO knocking on my door and shutting me down until after a court decision"

Honestly in their position I would probably do the same, I love my antique but I'm not interested in being the guinea-pig and footing the bill for a legal battle that might end badly for all of us.
Click to expand...

No offense, but it's thanks to people like you and your gunsmith that the Canadian firearms owner has been getting f*cked hard up the ass by the left wing element in government since 1995. Let's just stick our heads in the sand and and take the abuse "without making waves", eh? :rolleyes:

And for your info, there is no 'grey area'... it's all printed BLACK ON WHITE in the firearms act, but some people might just be too lazy or stupid to simply read the freakin thing. Personally, I am not concerned about being charged for obeying the law, because if it ever happens, whoever charges me will owe me a lot of money. I will make a few phone calls, get a lawyer who knows the firearms act better than the local chief of police and spread the story to national newspapers (law enforcement agencies love whenever their names and incompetence are ridiculed in the media - believe me, I know). And, after all is said and done, I'd end up with all my antiques, an apology plus a pile of cash to buy new ones. Plus the firearms community would score a nice legal victory.

But I guess people like you and your smith (who don't want to make waves, even though the law is on their side) will wait for others to do the job for them, and only then enjoy the fruits of victory for our rights... as far as I'm concerned, the next time a dictatorial left-wing government takes over, gun owners like these will be the first ones to hand their guns over to the local cop shop and end up taking up golf instead (with absolutely no complaints). In other words, their kind is of absolutely no use for the firearms community in Canada.

"Fear is the lengthened shadow of ignorance." ~ Arnold Glasow

cou:
 
Last edited:
Ok - I'm a bit concerned this is going to devolve into a mud slinging contest.


I've had my question answered, and I think there's enough info here for people to come to their own conclusions. Unless there's some massive revelation I'm requesting we just let this thread die peacefully before it devolves and gets locked/deleted, making it impossible to be used as a reference in the future.
 
H Wally said:
Ok - I'm a bit concerned this is going to devolve into a mud slinging contest.


I've had my question answered, and I think there's enough info here for people to come to their own conclusions. Unless there's some massive revelation I'm requesting we just let this thread die peacefully before it devolves and gets locked/deleted, making it impossible to be used as a reference in the future.
Click to expand...

Well... how do you think we should respond to a statement like the one posted above my previous post? "It's a grey area (no it isn't!), so my gunsmith and I would not venture there, because the scary LEO might charge me, bla bla bla"

I mean, come on... The whole purpose of these forums is to educate the ignorance some people exhibit, but even after tons of info and stickies about legal status of antiques, some members here still come out with 'grey area' statements. It's not grey, it's black on white (it's the goddamn law) and the gunsmith's only excuse for such a statement is if he's an illiterate. Otherwise, he should AT LEAST read the firearms act! (you know, with being a gunsmith and all... it could help. At least he wouldn't be talking out of his ass next time.)

I might be going a bit strong on this one, but it gets me pissed to see how ignorant some of our own guys can be. About a year ago I had a heated argument with the gun club owner I belonged to, because the owner was threatening me with the SQ/CFO for my unregistered antique-status handguns, saying I could be arrested (oh yeah? bring it on!). The asshat has been owning the effin club for over 20 years, yet he's never heard of an antique firearm (I guess he's another one who never took the time to read the actual law). He even thought my RCMP letters were frauds and said that "they're no good". He also stated a few other things about storage that made me laugh out loud to his face, like the need to trigger lock your non-restricted rifles at all times when in storage (even when stored in a cabinet or vault), because the cops could take them away and charge you if you don't. :jerkit:

Anyway, I think that in 2011, there's no more room for these kinds of people... and with the internet and all the reference info it can provide, neither is there an excuse for being this ignorant. Either smarten up or give up the hobby altogether, because spreading gross "tin hat" misinformation does not help. It actually compounds an already very f*cked up situation for firearm owners across the board, you and me included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom