Antique vs. C&R handgun - need quick answer!

[Scout106]

I am about to buy a Colt 1896 Army DA .38 with military markings. This is an antique, correct? And therefore requires no DROS and can be shipped directly to me? And does not need to be entered in my C&R book? And does not require any forms or tax be paid to CA DOJ?
Thanks in advance,
Mike

[mcubed4130]

The quick answer is... it's a C&R not an antique at least by CA law. Because if memory serves; that handgun shoots 38 long colt, therefore even though it's made before 1898, it was designed to fire centerfire ammo.

EDIT: CA laws got me this time... I was in PC12020 as noted; and PC12020 does not relate to normal handguns. The correct answer is ANTIQUE not C&R

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

An antique firearm is defined as any firearm that was manufactured in or before 1898 and

-M3

[Scout106]

Se EXCEPTIONS on page 4 of the manual. States federally defined ANTIQUES are not FIREARMS under CA law, yes???

[JawBone]

DELETED

[Scout106]

According to the serial number, it was manufactured in 1895, is marked U.S. ARMY Model 1896 on the butt, along with thte serial #. However, the marking appears to have been done with a handstamp and is uneven. All other markings appear correct. Thanks for any additional input.

[JawBone]

DELETED

[mcubed4130]

(The California Firearms Law Handbook is not the law, and as was pointed out to me the other day by someone else on this board, that section which states antiques are not firearms in CA has changed and needs to be edited. They are firearms, but there are exceptions for the transfer of unloaded antiques.)

I had noted the "AND" in the CA version vs. the "OR" in the Federal versions as well... anyway... Thanks for the clarification.

So should we EVER even bother to read anything from the CA BOF (DOJ) website?

The answer is certainly NO... guess I'll trash my bookmark to the "theoretical gun laws" on the CA BOF (DOJ) site.

Pathetic.

-M3

[Scout106]

JawBone - Thanks for the replies. I decided at the last (3) minute(s) not to buy it due to the possibility of the butt being re-stamped or forged. I may have missed a helluva deal but such is life and we live with the decisions we make. I would have been very unhappy if Colt determined it was re-stamped.
I am, however, still looking to fill the SAW handgun gap in my collection. This would be the first C&R handgun I buy out-of-state, and unlike long arms, is causing me concern over the Antique v. C&R in CA law. Your explanation is how I've interpretted it but what about M3s post in this thread?

[JawBone]

I had noted the "AND" in the CA version vs. the "OR" in the Federal versions as well... anyway... Thanks for the clarification.

So should we EVER even bother to read anything from the CA BOF (DOJ) website?

The answer is certainly NO... guess I'll trash my bookmark to the "theoretical gun laws" on the CA BOF (DOJ) site
Pathetic.

-M3

Bah! I took another look at that definition and going to reverse myself yet again.

The definition quoted by mcubed refers to Penal Code section 12020 and the definition states that it is "for the purpose of that section." PC 12020 deals with possession of dangerous weapons and bars the import of "cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm," and the like.

Elswhere, specifically relating to transfers of antiques, CA tracks the Federal definition of an antique which seems to include centerfires manufactured before 1/1/1899.

So now I am confused. Now I think it may be OK to import "antiques" under the federal definition i.e. centerfires, as long as they are recognizable as firearms??? I give up. So nice of CA to have two different definitions of antique firearms. I have confused myself. Anyone else?

[Scout106]

My position is that CA adheres to the BATF definition of Antiques. Hence, any handgun manufactured prior to 1/1/1899 is an antique and therefore NOT required to be registered/DROS'd/taxed or otherwise reported or transferred.

As such, a Colt Model 1896 manufactured in 1898 is an Antique whereas the same model manufactured in 1899 is a C&R. Same situation as exists with the Krag U.S. rifle.

Comments, anyone?

[mcubed4130]

Bah! I took another look at that definition and going to reverse myself yet again.

The definition quoted by mcubed refers to Penal Code section 12020 and the definition states that it is "for the purpose of that section."

12020 deals with possession of dangerous weapons and bars the import of "cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm," and the like.

So now I am confused. Now I think it may be OK to import "antiques" under the federal definition i.e. centerfires, as long as they are recognizable as firearms??? I give up. So nice of CA to have two different definitions of antique firearms. I have confused myself. Anyone else?

Jawbone, what happened! Your antique firearm - foo - was more powerful than my C&R foo!

You hit the nail on the head. My earlier comment was as you noted was in relation to PC 12020; which does not apply to a regular handgun.

All that appears to be relevant is PC 12001. (e)

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov (search 'penal code' for 'antique').
12001. (e) For purposes of Sections 12070, 12071, and paragraph (8) of subdivision (a), and subdivisions (b), (c), (d), and (f) of Section 12072, the term "firearm" does not include an unloaded firearm that is defined as an "antique firearm" in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Since "12070" is basically selling, leasing, or transfering firearms - unless the qualify as a dealer or other exempt person under "12071". "12072 (a) (8), (b), (c), (d), (f)" is just babbling about all the goo we hate about handgun laws in CA.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/fflc/ffl...genques.htm#q4
TITLE 18 U.S.C. CHAPTER 44 SECTION 921(a) (16)

(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

(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, breech-block, or any combination thereof.

My position is that CA adheres to the BATF definition of Antiques. Hence, any handgun manufactured prior to 1/1/1899 is an antique and therefore NOT required to be registered/DROS'd/taxed or otherwise reported or transferred.

As such, a Colt Model 1896 manufactured in 1898 is an Antique whereas the same model manufactured in 1899 is a C&R. Same situation as exists with the Krag U.S. rifle.

Comments, anyone?

Scout - you are correct; sorry about my mistake earlier. It is rather annoying that for whatever reason; the PC 12020 laws define antique firearms differently... but then again I suppose we should all expect that around here.

-M3

[Scout106]

M3 - I appreciate your thoughts on the issue. Glad we now agree - that makes two people in CA who know what an Antique is, I think.

I worked with CA criminal law for 25 years and retired LOD 13 years ago. I cannot believe how the Legislature has messed up the firearms laws in this state in such a short period of time - to the point that even trained persons have difficulty answering simple questions.

Anyone else out there?