Sorry, a little off subject and long!

I guess this relates to Lugers as much as any other firearm. Here in the US, one thing has bothered me for the last 10-20 years. I would like to get some other views and opinions...and if agreement, what can be done about it. Here goes. The 68 GCA specified that any firearm made before 1898 was classed as an "antique firearm" as opposed to a Firearm. At that time, that would mean any "gun" 70 years old or older. Now, almost 34 years later, the standard for an antique firearm is 104 years old (in 3 weeks). This seems a bit crazy and un-fair, not to say that many other laws and policies are not also, but normally antique status is bestowed based on an age of the item (I believe that with cars it's 25 years? for example). At this rate even 300 year old guns will not be considered antiques (in 196 years!). Am I crazy or is this provision? I will not likley live to see my WWII guns reach the 100 year old mark, but God willing, I may live to see my WWI era arms reach that age. I would be nice and correct if they were officialy considered antiques. By the way, consider that when the GCA was passed that in todays terms...anything made before 1932 would be an antique.

[Dok]

in Bermuda all firearms are illegal... HOWEVER... any firearm made over a hundred years ago is exempt from the law. This also covers non-firing replica guns BTW... so that means I can bring in a fully functional 1900 American Eagle .30 Luger and not have to worry... YEAH RIGHT... let's just try that, shall we???


Dok

I think they placed more weapons on the C&R list for that reason didn't they?


Not really the same as a Springfield Rifle status, but it makes it easier for someone to ship if they have a C&R license?


Ed

You both make some good points. I think Bermuda is on the right track only in the common sense of the 100 year determination. Their other policy is bad. I have always had mixed feelings on the whole C&R deal. I do not really think it is much of a benefit and could be really used to ones detriment. It goes without saying that I believe the right affirmed (not granted) by the 2nd amendment is absolute, but that is another subject. I guess the more interesting question is if indeed the 1898 cut off was borrowed from the NRA's definition of "antique" vs "modern" firearms that has been in place since at least the 1960's (I was too young to read during the 50's so could only look at pictures in American Rifleman). IF so, perhaps the NRA needs to look at revising a definition that has been in place for close to a half a century! Currently 90 year old guns from WWI (indeed 104 year old guns in many cases) are being held to much higher grading standards than 70 year old guns were in the 1960's. After all a year of age is a year of age.

[Lonnie Zimmerman]

GOODgun laws will never get thru the senate with all the Commie type Democrats running it.


Lonnie

[Big Norm]

Maybe I am a little off base and maybe wrong, but does not the term "antique" also include the provision for whether or not the weapon uses modern ammo. Maybe that provision only applies to Michigans definition of "antique".

Big Norm

Not to hog this thread, but I've researched the laws in this area extensivly. The Federal 68 GCA only requires pre 98 date of manufacture. As you probably know smokeless powder was introduced in the mid 1880's but did not completly replace blackpowder (by this I mean arms continued to be manufactured for black cartridges) until about 1910. Of course black powder replicas continue to made to this day and they are classified the same as pre 1898 firearms. These comments are made under the assumption that the term "modern ammunition" means self-contained, smokless powder and not just self-contained (which could date back to around the 1850's) I'm not sure what is particularly "modern" about an one-hundred and twenty year old design...but again who said any of this made sense. To re-state my objection another way- I find it difficult to reconcile that a 100+ year old gun is evaluated by the same grading criteria as a 2 year old gun.

The laws have absolutely nothing to do with justice and/or logic. If you remember that, you will avoid a lot of trouble.


You can expect them to try to outlaw the C&B guns, too. There was a move to make ALL guns that fire cartridges be classed as modern.


The idiots in Government don't know how to draw up a law and we end up with these 'abotions' that we have to live with for years.


The classic example was the Feinstein group in Cal. who drew up a bill to outlaw 'assault rifles' in california and they could not even draw up a bill that could define one..


The AK47 was not properly described and, qs a result, many guns were 'proscribed' but the AK was still legal!!!!!!! It took them a year to get around to correcting it.


When a law is passed, we all read it...to see what it said. aand, If possible, how we then get around it any way we can, right?


What you/we really need to worry about is the move to dictate a national ID smart card.......if that happens, all your guns will be on the SOB...until they come to get them!

I could not agree more.

[Steve Lempitski]

What happens when,(and unfortunely it will happen), another Clinton type is elected president, and the person placed in this cabinet post feels that "evil" firearms are a risk to homeland security?

[Big Norm]

I am a little out of my league on this particular subject, but I think that the term "Modern Ammunition" was ment to mean any ammo that is commercially available. During the developement of the cartridge many one-of-a-kind cartiridges were developed for equally one-of-a-kind weapons. Many weapons made for war were especially made so that they could not be reloaded. I am thinking of one cartridge that had a special primer that could not be punched out. Off hand, I cannot remember what ammo it was.


Another good example is the 9mm developed by Georg Luger. He created this cartridge especially for the Luger. Nothing comparable was available at the time. The rest is history.

Big Norm

[Mark M.]

Gruss Gott,alle!

I support all the various views given voice in this thread.I don't much like any of the "new and improved" laws that have come down the pike!I think it is more than high time we go back to an "antique" law - It's called the 2nd Ammendment!!! Doing that makes all the other "problematic questions" moot! Sorry,folks! That's just the way I see it! Thanks!


Tschuss! Mark M.

[BILL]