The government should have no say in our own private affairs, and what we do with our bodies and out private property as long as we don’t hurt anyone God dang it. The system is so broken.
@@Triangle26it SOUNDS very simple, but it boils down to a timeless, Socratic question. What is good. “If we don’t hurt anyone” is a remarkably subjective statement. I wish we were doing better as a country socially/mentally where we didn’t have to do this, but CLEARLY we have to change something.
@@Triangle26 Of course it is. Where you liberty ends and where my rights begin is a timeless question that every society, every person, every government has their own thoughts on. Guns are inherently dangerous. It's not like we're talking about the liberty to where a crop top in public or not.
@@RyanPersaud-l6vTechnically, guns are not *inherently* dangerous. They require extrinsic force or intention to cause harm, and are therefore *conditionally* dangerous. Examples of inherent dangers would be tsunamis or polar bears. They can produce harm without the external presence of malice, irresponsibility, or intent. That’s an important distinction. Another great example of an inherent danger is human beings, particularly males. Inarguably, one of the most destructive forces in nature is the human man. In fact, the conditional danger of firearms is quite clearly a *product* of the inherent danger of man. And yet, despite *your* inherent capacity for destruction, I don’t tell you how to live your life. You’ve never threatened, obstructed, stolen from, or harmed me. I have no reason to doubt that you are socialized and conscientious, so I don’t make your liberty my business. I instead choose to trust you, and I’d ask that you extend me the same courtesy. We can judge and regulate each other based not on our capabilities - but on how we use those capabilities. I think that’s pretty simple and reasonable.
I learned this law at 18, a friend shoved an add for 1895 Brazilian Mausers in 7mm, said you need one. One check n copy of my DL later, a Mauser rifle was delivered.
Yep. My Martini Henry rifle happily was an antique under both laws, then some folks began offering newly made ammunition in caliber .577-450. Sigh. But then my Colt Single Action Army, Model of 1873, made in 1880 in caliber .45 Colt has always had that problem..
Sucks that our Rossi Model 92 clones aren’t considered antique yet. Mine’s in 357 Magnum/.38 Special, yours in 44, and it’s all based on ammo production and availability rather than design patent. Uncle Sam’s mad complicated and open to so many interpretations, none of which are ever in our favor. So unnecessarily confusing too.
Exactly right. This is the same government that trusted me with a Polish AKM on my 18th birthday, but made me wait until I was 21 to buy a single action .22 LR revolver. How do you like your R92? Mine took a little work to smooth out, but once I got it dialed in - it’s an absolute blast at the range.
@@Triangle26 Mine was a killer on the range too, fresh out of the box in summer of 2020. Got it from a local mom and pops here Upstate New York and they had a 100 yard, outdoor range out back. I had a green box of the Remington jacketed round nose in .38 special, loaded up 11 rounds in the mag and was plinking the torso shaped steel plates out at 100 yards. I filmed the occasion. I got 9 out of 11 on steel. Ping! It was awesome. I was standing upright too. Not leaning on anything. Even had a couple of guys genuinely impressed and cheering me on. Such a workhorse. I made it my go to carbine on my property and woods, and even took some critters out with it at nice distances. I took it out again after watching your video just to see if it’s still on target and now it shoots high and right unfortunately. I blame the ergonomics of the rifle design, because as you’ve noticed, no matter how you lean or prop up the rifle, it always wants to rest on that front blade sight. It’s so susceptible to knocks too, and it tends to hook on things like car seats and clothing. I wish someone made a front sight hood for it already. It would be a big aftermarket seller, I’m sure. Now I have no idea how to finagle it back to zero. So bummed.
Do you think replica cap and ball revolvers could be considered firearms because they’re readily convertible (or whatever terminology was used) to fire cartridges? From what I remember the law says readily convertible means by changing the barrel, but basically every replica revolver you can buy has a plug and play conversion cylinder available. Most states that require a CCW have laws against carrying antique firearms or purchasing ammunition, but if a prohibited/unlicensed person was carrying even a non converted replica antique revolver it wouldn’t be a far stretch to consider that a firearm and in the process have cap and ball replicas be subject to the GCA. Quite a few people on RU-vid are more or less encouraging felons to carry antique revolvers, and I have a feeling that is going to put the kibosh on this whole antique firearms thing one of these days
Very interesting thoughts. Short answer, *replica* cap and ball revolvers cannot be considered firearms because they are not subject to the “readily convertible” clause you mentioned. While you are correct that cap and ball revolvers can indeed be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by means of a cylinder swap (which does mean the ATF definition of a “breechblock replacement”), that restriction *exclusively* applies to firearms covered by subparagraph (C). Replica firearms achieve antique status in subparagraph (B), and are therefor not subject to that standard. *Non-replica* cap and ball revolvers however, such as the Ruger Old Army, would legally be considered firearms - so long as it could be proven that drop-in conversion cylinders were readily available. I don’t personally see the ATF ever coming for antiques. They’ve got their hands full with 80% frames, pistol braces, and rate increasing triggers. I don’t think it’s in their interest to open a new front coming after single action revolvers.
The key (unconditional) CGA 1968 seems to be "(16)The term “antique firearm” means- (A)any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or" So if its made on or before 12-31-1898 it is an Antique. I will add that the ATF allows for some weapons that the date of mfg is in question to be assumed pre 1899 but not all.. 1886 Label comes to mind as some MAY have been made during the great war but 2.3 million existed before 1898 mine is an 1886/93/R35 The replica issue is where things go wonky.. (B)any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica- (i)is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (ii)uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or (C)any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof. Note with care the list "readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof." This list does not include cylinders thus the .45 colt cyl. for STEEL B.P. Revolvers
In Canada, land of no handguns allowed, antique firearms are readily available, but are so overpriced it's insane. And you don't need a license to own one or use it, if you can at an approved range that is. Ammo for these antiques is easy to come by, however it's very pricy and not always worth it.
You can always make ur own ammo like Mel Gibson in the movie: The Patriot. Like that scene where he is over the campfire, creating new musket balls from the lead soldier figurines from his dead son. (Im American and don't really know Canadian laws that good, so it is just an idea idfk lol)
It's crazy how firearms have jumped in price in Canada . Not so long ago lee-enfields were 14.95 , 98 Mauser 29.95 . Cooey .22 10$ , anschutz .22 15 $ 10 years back I got a 6.5x55 in like new for 125 I lament the day tradex closed , good rifles , fair price
So, as I understand what you've said, if my Swedish rolling block, chambered in 8x58R Danish, were a replica it would still be an "antique" because factory ammo is practically non-existent (I think Buffalo Arms makes a limited quantity, an no one else). Is that correct?
That’s half correct. A replica of your Swedish Rolling Block chambered in 8x58R *would* be an Antique according to the Gun Control Act of 1968, but *would not* be an Antique according to the National Firearms Act of 1934. In other words, it’s Antique status is dependent on the legal context. Such a rifle could be legally mailed across State lines to a non-FFL, because *in that context* it is an Antique. Such a rifle could not have its barrel cut down below the NFA limit (16”) because *in that context* it is not an Antique.
I have 2 old pistols, that appear to be pre 1898 and use black powder cartridges. I am waiting on an age estimate for an Iver Johnson, 5 shot, last Patent date of Aug 25, 96. The other is a H&R 2nd model 2nd variation (Oct 4th 1887) 6 shot, 32 cal S&W, that I've been told was made in 1890-1892. I would like to gift them to a family member who lives in another state. In your opinion, does the transfer need to go through an FFL dealer?
I'm not an expert on Iver Johnson revolvers unfortunately, and the ten minutes of research I was willing to put into it didn't give me confidence one way or the other. The best I can offer you is this: If you can determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the revolvers were manufactured prior to January 1st 1898, you can proceed with full confidence without going through an FFL. The 1968 Gun Control Act is very clear about this. If you cannot determine date of manufacture beyond a reasonable doubt, my personal advice would be to air on the side of caution and treat them like modern firearms.
@@Triangle26 Thanks for your advice! I have found the gun laws to be a little confusing, and was feeling like it would be best to go through an FFL. The person who identified the age of the H&R didn't want to say either way, as that's not their expertise.
Who is making pre 1898 cartridges that you speak of, remember, pre 1898 will be black powder... and I can't name US cartridge manufactures making black powder ammo.......
7.65x53 Mauser, 1889. 6.5x52 Carcano, 1889. 7.62x54 Rimmed, 1891. 30-40 Krag, 1892. 7x57 Mauser, 1892. 6.5x55 Swedish, 1894. 30-30 Winchester, 1895. .38 Special, 1898. Smokeless powder was invented in 1884. Pre ‘99 *does not* mean black powder. I thought I gave quite a few pretty clear examples of that in this video.
@@Triangle26 I'm not an expert but I do know the original .38 S&W Special was originally black powder. The point is, a LOT of what dates pre-1899 IS black powder - they are not rated for the more powerful smokeless, therefore ammo for them is not commercially made in the USA. I did not look up every firearm you mentioned, nor do I remember hearing you mention black powder at all.
I believe the cartridges you are referring to are of the hand-made paper type. Would have commonly been carried by soldiers and likely made the night before. They made reloading the 1858 Remington New Army a breeze compared to measuring powder for each cylinder.
As a FELON for alcohol DUI, I sold off my arsenal ,now I own another of PRE 99 that is much more effective and gratifying' and not as expansive as people believe. Just buy a good old Gun
