Using antique Pistol Lock for a new build?

TTB4570

TTB4570

Member
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Location
Southern BC, Canada
A Legal question I had for you guys, If I use an antique pistol lock for a flintlock pistol I plan on building, is it classified as an antique firearm? I'm asking because i've noticed a lot of antique revolvers that have gone through RCMP classification are mostly rebuilt from the frame only.
 
I'm going with no. Rebuilt antiques are generally built around the frame ( or the the 'gun' as it is considered ) as it's the main part of the weapon.
Would you consider the lock the main part of an antique? You could likely fire most muzzle loaders without the the lock. Poorly, but it could be done.
Lol, take this up the legalese and ask them. Get some real condescending answers there for sure.
 
Certainly not a legal opinion but I think the general consensus is that it's the breach plug / barrel that constitutes the "frame" of a muzzle loader.

One more place our laws are stupid, inconsistent and nonsensical.
 
So the general rule is if I find a piece of pipe dated 1898 or earlier? Hell, how in gods name does the RCMP know if an antique flintlock is antique if they were made before serial numbers, and half of the ones from turkey didn't even have proof marks?
 
So in other words, ask yourself this. Is it the action of the firearm that makes it antique? Answer is no, its the receiver/frame.
 
TTB4570 said:
So the general rule is if I find a piece of pipe dated 1898 or earlier? Hell, how in gods name does the RCMP know if an antique flintlock is antique if they were made before serial numbers, and half of the ones from turkey didn't even have proof marks?
Click to expand...

I wrote to the RCMP in the 1990s and asked in two separate letters, how they established the antiquity of muzzle loading guns and second what was the frame or receiver of a muzzle loader and in particular was it the breach plug. The answer I received on antiquity was that they could be distinguished by design or construction. I challenged that opinion (from the RCMP Commissioner) and said that there were a number of gunmakers today who produced custom muzzle loaders which were indistinguishable from originals in design or construction. The reply was that such examples were very few. On the question of frame or receiver, the answer was the breach plug and perhaps the barrel, with the implication that the barrel had to have a breach plug installed.
From personal experience, in the late 90s or early 2000s, I sent photos of a antique handgun to the RCMP asking for a letter stating it to be an antique. (gun was in the US at the time). They replied that they would agree with me that it was a flintlock but would not state that it was made before 1898 because it did not have a maker's name on it. My experience at the local level is that most RCMP know virtually nothing about antique guns or the law and most do not know the difference between a flintlock and a percussion gun. I would assume that in the firearms identification lab in Ottawa (I think) there are 2 or 3 technicians who are somewhat knowledgeable but even so, the onus is probably on the owner to convince them a gun (or breached barrel) is pre 1898 and that they would be very reluctant to commit themselves that it was pre 1898

cheers mooncoon
 
Remember that when it comes to firearms the crown is more likely to be interested in finding grounds to convict you than they are in finding reasons to let you go. Regardless of what the RCMP set as their guidelines, the only way to truly define the gray areas in the antique regulations is to test them in court. Which is great if you win but probably a lifetime firearms prohibition if you lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom