Important re Antique status

mooncoon

mooncoon

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Location
Vancouver Island
members will recall that I converted a S&W model 1 1/2 single action from 32 caliber to 22 short morris caliber. I recently wrote to the CFP to get it classified as an antique. The following is part of the reply I received.

"The firearm in question does not qualify for "antique" status by calibre before conversion to 22 Morris Short calibre; (a Smith & Wesson Top Break 32 No 1 1/2 Single Action, all Top Break 32 1 1/2 Single Action came in 32 S&W cal). The calibre - 32 S&W cal precludes this firearm from "antique" status. It is not possible to create an antique out of a non-antique 115 years after the expiration of the qualifying date for antique status."

What is note worthy is that it seems to be saying that the frames of a 12(6) prohib must remain prohibited regardless of modern alterations. It would also imply that rebarreling of handguns from short barreled to long barreled does not alter them from prohib to restricted. I don't think it has any impact on long guns relative to antique status for the purpose of the now removed long gun registration system

Rather worrying, when you consider the number of altered pre 1898 handguns that many of us have. It also partially contradicts provincial firearms office policy that the frame of a post 1898 handgun is itself prohibited until rebarreled to restricted and returns to prohibited if the barrel is removed.

cheers mooncoon
 
budman said:
Scary, so what about the small two barrel
Derrenger?
Click to expand...

I think that things like derringers which were antique as of 1898 remain antique and further possibly you can change their caliber as long as the cartridge changed to is not on the "no go" list. At the same time what is more troubling is the case of things like Colts and S&Ws which start out with a 44 caliber barrel and have new cylinders installed to convert them to 44 russian or similar conversions of other restricted guns.

It is also troubling that it appears that the RCMP can essentially write the law however they like because they are the ones that administer the law. They apparently do not have to go before Parliament to change or redefine our laws

cheers mooncoon
 
Last edited:
I think there saying that make and model was never made in antique calibers of any kind when it was made new in pre 1898.
not like Webleys as webleys MKIIs which were antique to begin with and it even just lists right in the FRT that 45 Acp converted MKIIs do have antique status. Thats just and example.
In short you can not take a pre 1898 gun that was only made in Non antique calibers and then change them to something on the ok list.
They would have to creat a new FRT entry for every gun that that was done to.
If you started with a gun that was also made in 32 Rf and say 32 Short colt and it was converted to 32 Rf you would or should be OK as long as its now 32 rf and pre 1898.
Post a picture of the model your talking about so we know which gun your doing this to.
Alot of them S&W were only made in No Go Cartridges.

Be carefull whom you get the info from at CFC the firearms tecs are the only ones you should deal with most of the people there have no clue about antique handguns.
I just got two antique letters in the last week for SAA Colts in 38 Sp so there is no change.
I think its the gun you started with that caused this responce.
Both the guns i got letters on were converted along time ago but no problem getting antique letters for them.
If there was some major change i think i would have been told then.
 
Last edited:
I've long been surprised that they allowed "antiques" to be classified as such when they were originally chambered in a perscribed caliber.

The law is written pretty clearly... I've turned down a few nice Colt SAAs which were re-chambered to .44 spc but were originally 45lc.
 
If you carefully read the definition of prohibition on the basis of .25/.32 caliber as opposed to the prohibition based on barrel length, you can see how this interpretation was made.
There was a period when reclassification of modern .25 and .32 prohibs to restricted by changing the caliber was disallowed, because of the letter of the law. Then policy changed, and it was allowed. Maybe policy is changing once more.
 
A guy I know bought a Webley MkI converted to 45acp/autorim got a antique status letter from the CFC and that was just 5 days ago so I would have to agree with the general consensus about antiques that were originally manufactured in a non antique calibre.
 
Last edited:
I was always under the belief that the gun must start off as an antique and not be transformed from a prohib which will be registered with CFC as being on the no go cal list anyway. I don't believe there has been any change.
 
The Model 1 1/2 had three issues. The first two (known as the first and second issues) were "tip-up" revolvers with the barrel release catch located on the side of the frame in front of the trigger, while the third (known as the "Model 1 1/2 Single Action Revolver") was a "top-break", with the barrel release catch located on the top of the frame, just in front of the hammer. If your S&W Model 1 1/2 is a first or second issue you have a prescribed antique pistol as they were originally chambered in 32 rimfire. If it is a third model it would have originally chambered in 32 S&W, a centre fire round and not an antique in Canada.

Regards,
Powderman
 
This is troubling. I have an antique in 38/357 which was built as a restricted and I rechambered.... Never had any issues at all getting a letter for it, and having it deregistered....
 
dingus said:
I think there saying that make and model was never made in antique calibers of any kind when it was made new in pre 1898.
not like Webleys as webleys MKIIs which were antique to begin with and it even just lists right in the FRT that 45 Acp converted MKIIs do have antique status.
If you started with a gun that was also made in 32 Rf and say 32 Short colt and it was converted to 32 Rf you would or should be OK as long as its now 32 rf and pre 1898.
Post a picture of the model your talking about so we know which gun your doing this to.
Alot of them S&W were only made in No Go Cartridges.

Be carefull whom you get the info from at CFC the firearms tecs are the only ones you should deal with most of the people there have no clue about antique handguns.
Click to expand...

I will begin by saying the gun I am dealing with is the top break model 1 1/2. In some ways I don't see how changing an antique to a cartridge that was not developed until after 1900 is much different from changing the top break to a cartridge that is totally obsolete. I have had some ruling that said once a gun is prohibited, its frame is alway prohibited unless and only while it is rebarreled to no longer conform to 12 (6). In other words if you start with a short barreled gun, rebarrel to restricted then remove the barrel the frame become illegal until you rebarrel back to restricted. I think that is based on a court decision or perhaps a policy decision over some semi autos that could only have their barrels lengthened by heroic efforts. Other semi autos can be easily rebarreled (eg luger,) to over 105 mm or fairly easily (like the Browning 1910 pocket pistol)

where I may have goofed on this gun is barrel length. It is short barreled and if I had made the sleeve longer than 105 mm the case might not have been sent to the policy section, who is the one that said it cannot be made antique 105 years later.

what is troubling is that it also implies that a antique restricted gun cannot be made into an antique 105 years later. What also may be important is that the gun was not imported in its present caliber. (the gun has always been in Canada for the last 20 years or more). That means that the gun was on record as being 32 S&W after bill C68. If I had imported the gun as a 22 morris short, there would be no record of when the gun was converted and presumably it would be dealt with by a verifier and no go before a policy maker. I am not sure but suspect the 22 morris may have been introduced slightly before 1898. As I read the decision, it would still be prohibited if converted to 32 rf. The obsolescence of the cartridge is not the issue.

cheers mooncoon
 
7. A handgun manufactured before 1898


that is capable of discharging 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.
Click to expand...



Just 2 criteria, that's it.



The only "question" is if the original "calibre design" in a "bad calibre" will somehow "block" future adaptations into a "good calibre", I guess?



http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-464/page-2.html#docCont
 
Last edited:
The S&W Top break 1 and a half was not made in 32 Rf or any ok antique Cartridge it was made in 32 S&W thats it nothing else i have never seen one in 32 Rf or i would have bought one.
The Antique S&W 1 and a halfs that were made in 32 Rf and other antique cartridges were bottom break open actions.
Look in the flademands Guide.
Thats where your problem is your trying to have the only antique top break one and a half and they arnt going for it.
All the other guns that have had there calibers changed are also made in antique cartridges like SAA colts Webleys and french 1873 ect ect.

That said i agree with you as long as its pre 1898 frame and in a cartridge not on that stiupid list then its a perscribed antique going by there own wording and there stupid lists but you picked the wrong gun to try a conversion on i doubt the barrel had anything to do with it its the caliber and the fact none of the 1 and a half top breaks are listed as perscribed antiques not one.
 
UPDATE: I actually came to a conclusion on this, largely because I "to-this-day" am disappointed in the Hasselwander decision.


The section (and it's in the Criminal Code, not the Firearms Act) does not say "manufactured...to discharge", nor does it say "originally designed".


The section certainly does not say "capable...of discharging".


So this is my take on things, FWIW: per Major & Lamer's "strict-construction" approach, "designed" is a far more "as it currently stands" term. And something not presently in the "bad calibres" therefore cannot be considered "designed to discharge" those "bad calibres". Yea, I'm "arguing" that Hasselwander is a 2-way street, and that this is the other side of their comments - sue me.


Per the spineless & gutless wonders La Forest, Gonthier and Cory, the key thing is to assess "The Purpose and Goals of the Provisions Pertaining to" the weapons in question. Well, here's where they get "the other side of the coin treatment" as well. The purpose and goals of the antique provisions are to exempt people from licensing and ATT obligations; as such, there is every reason to say that the antique provisions are meant to be read in the least onerous way possible, i.e. to only deny those firearms that are presently designed (or presently adapted) to discharge the "bad calibres". Remember, it does not say "capable...of discharging".


And lest you think I'm merely "playing semantics" or what-not, here are Cory's own words about the meaning of "capable" - which I remind you is a more onerous "catch-all" than is "designed" or "adapted" - both of which refer to changes "already done":


...it [i.e. "capable"] should mean capable of conversion to an automatic weapon in a relatively short period of time with relative ease
Click to expand...


http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1007/index.do

Case dismissed.
 
Last edited:
to answer Dingus first; I think that if I had modified the barrel to over 105 mm the gun would not have gone to the policy makers for a decision and the verifier's office would have certified it antique. I know the one that I spoke to over the phone felt the gun as presently is, was an antique

The problem with Cory's statement is that virtually all guns could be described as prohibited on his basis. For example you can saw most barrels shorter than 105 mm in seconds and you can modify most revolvers to shoot 25 or 32 cal centerfire cartridges fairly easily. Even many semi autos could probably be modified to function with 32 auto shells with a bit of jiggery pockery on the recoil spring (softening them)

cheers mooncoon
 
tiriaq said:
If you carefully read the definition of prohibition on the basis of .25/.32 caliber as opposed to the prohibition based on barrel length, you can see how this interpretation was made.
There was a period when reclassification of modern .25 and .32 prohibs to restricted by changing the caliber was disallowed, because of the letter of the law. Then policy changed, and it was allowed. Maybe policy is changing once more.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are referring to an interpretation similar to the one quoted for Cory et al Frames or receivers which can easily be adapted to fire 25 or 32 cal

cheers mooncoon
 
mooncoon said:
to answer Dingus first; I think that if I had modified the barrel to over 105 mm the gun would not have gone to the policy makers for a decision and the verifier's office would have certified it antique. I know the one that I spoke to over the phone felt the gun as presently is, was an antique

The problem with Cory's statement is that virtually all guns could be described as prohibited on his basis. For example you can saw most barrels shorter than 105 mm in seconds and you can modify most revolvers to shoot 25 or 32 cal centerfire cartridges fairly easily. Even many semi autos could probably be modified to function with 32 auto shells with a bit of jiggery pockery on the recoil spring (softening them)

cheers mooncoon
Click to expand...


There are many problems with it - I just look to produce solutions, is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom