Change in Antique Classification?

[JBinIll]

As usual the writer isn't overly familiar with firearms.M1903A3.....WW1……


http://www.gnd.com/redefining-antique-firearms-to-strengthen-second-amendment-rights.php?utm_source=taboola

Text: H.R.4547 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

There is one version of the bill.
Bill text available as:TXTPDFHTML/XML
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (05/01/2014)

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF or HTML/XML.




[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 4547 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4547

To modify the definition of ``antique firearm''.


__________________________________________________ _____________________


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 1, 2014

Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned

__________________________________________________ _____________________

A BILL



To modify the definition of ``antique firearm''.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.

Section 921(a)(16)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``1898'' and inserting ``1913''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

Subsection (g) of section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by striking ``1898'' each place it appears and inserting
``1913''.
<all>

[dave]

So they want to change it to a hundred years. This used to be the age given for antiques of all kinds, furniture, glassware, etc. Don't know what these people use now, judging from the "antique" stores wife and I visit its any old piece of junk that looks old! As far as guns are concerned it does not much matter, most gun stores and dealers are ignorant of the 1898 rule and will not abide by it anyway.

[madsenshooter]

It isn't going to change much for me, I have one Remington Model 14 that's presently an antique and one 1898 rifle that isn't now.

[JOHN42768]

In "Wonderful New York State" I'm now told in order to qualify as a antique, it now has to be a muzzle loader or cartridge firing rifle that shells for it are no longer produced.

[Dick Hosmer]

It would be a great help to me (therefore, given Murphy's law, it is probably doomed!).

My first thought is that it will likely be a net wash. For example, it won't change the status of the most common "old gun" (1894 Winchester) and, while it cleans up the Krag, will muddy the 1903, and introduce the 1911 Colt, to the wonderful world of "some are, some aren't".

[JBinIll]

The one to watch is S.2363 as they may try to add some anti-gun amendments to it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.2363:

[dave]

Dick, it will change the staus of the 1894 Win., move it up from '98 to '13. Like the Krags the 94 has to go by serial numbers of 1898. I see it as a great advanage, it puts 15 more years of guns in the antique range. I only have two Krags that are antique, now they all would be. Don't confuse 'antique' with 'C&R'.
I think the Rem. 14 was introduced in 1913 so it would not now be an "antique"?
I wish they would move the date to 1950!!

[JimF]

. . . . I wish they would move the date to 1950!!

Me too . . . .

That would make ME . . . . officially . . . . an antique! --Jim

[joem]

The one to watch is S.2363 as they may try to add some anti-gun amendments to it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.2363:

You can bet your last dollar that a bunch of anti gun amendments will be added and they might pass.

[Dick Hosmer]

Dick, it will change the staus of the 1894 Win., move it up from '98 to '13. Like the Krags the 94 has to go by serial numbers of 1898. I see it as a great advanage, it puts 15 more years of guns in the antique range. I only have two Krags that are antique, now they all would be. Don't confuse 'antique' with 'C&R'.
I think the Rem. 14 was introduced in 1913 so it would not now be an "antique"?
I wish they would move the date to 1950!!

What I meant was that the 1894 Winchester would still be a straddle, just is it is now.

I don't "do" C&R, and never buy anything other than antiques.

[dave]

Dick---OK, I mis-understood, sorry 'bout that!
I don't do C&R either. The last Krag I got was a 1896 carbine and I had to go thru the whole check and form deal, the dealer was unfamilar with the law. Had the same problem with LGS when I did have a C&R.

[mannparks]

Me too . . . .

That would make ME . . . . officially . . . . an antique! --Jim


Oh come on James you made antique status long ago.

Doc

[Wreck Checker]

Would be better to strike the date completely and to rewrite the law to read "any weapon manufactured over one hundred years ago".
We would not need to fight this again in the future and someday even the black, ugly, & vilified AR-15 would become an antique.
100 years old is customary antique status for most any other type of object; should be fine for guns too.

[Dick Hosmer]

Would be better to strike the date completely and to rewrite the law to read "any weapon manufactured over one hundred years ago".
We would not need to fight this again in the future and someday even the black, ugly, & vilified AR-15 would become an antique.
100 years old is customary antique status for most any other type of object; should be fine for guns too.

There is some quick appeal to your idea - but, as with many things when you look at the details, such a ruling would do nothing to fix one of the most annoying things, which is that many guns would still span the break and present the case of "mine is OK, but your identical piece is a terrible death-dealing child-killer." The law needs to be changed, but it isn't that simple.

[Wreck Checker]

There is some quick appeal to your idea - but, as with many things when you look at the details, such a ruling would do nothing to fix one of the most annoying things, which is that many guns would still span the break and present the case of "mine is OK, but your identical piece is a terrible death-dealing child-killer." The law needs to be changed, but it isn't that simple.

With patience, the break will resolve itself as each individual weapons turns 100 years old. Better to sell a "simple idea of 100 years old = antique" than to try and have a politician, news media, or low information general public confuse themselves with technical definitions that they have already shown a complete lack of understanding of such a assault rifle, automatic, etc.
100 years old sounds benign and non-threatening.
You also have the issue of weapons still in production. A gang banger is not likely to use a 1912 vintage Government Model to rob the liquor store due to it's inherent value / rarity; most produced 100 years ago have probably already been worn out / destroyed, but he may get his hands on a recently produced piece employing the same technology.
Any fixed date such as "1913" or whatever you choose will always cause an arbitrary break.

[DRAGONFLYDF]

I pick 2014, any weapon made prior to that is exempt from having to do a 4473, see how easy that was, problem solved.

[JBinIll]

There will never be anything other than an arbitrary date.There are too many guns that have been in production in one form or another for over a hundred years.That's what the purpose of the C&R is for.

[dave]

A gang banger would never know anything about collector values and will use any gun he gets his hand on. Gang banger=stupid.

[psteinmayer]

Amen to that Dave!