Friends,
I have a question concerning the California law on what constitutes an antique firearm, exempt from many laws. Reading the law it makes mention of the gun (whether pre-1899 or a replica) not being designed or redesigned to be able to, or readily able to fire centerfire cartridges (paraphrased). I also remember a phrase mentioning that the gun may not be "readily convertible" to be able to fire centerfire carriages (paraphrased).
My question is this: What does this mean in the context of an owner of a replica cap & ball revolver, (Uberti, Pietta, etc) but where companies exist that sell cartridge-capable replacement cylinders. Because companies sell these cylinders that fit perfectly into an owner's cap & ball revolver, does that mean that the owner's cap & ball revolver is now "readily convertible"? Or does it mean that the cap & ball owner must also own the cartridge-capable replacement cylinder for this condition to be enforceable? Is there any case law on this?
Thank you for any facts or opinions
I have a question concerning the California law on what constitutes an antique firearm, exempt from many laws. Reading the law it makes mention of the gun (whether pre-1899 or a replica) not being designed or redesigned to be able to, or readily able to fire centerfire cartridges (paraphrased). I also remember a phrase mentioning that the gun may not be "readily convertible" to be able to fire centerfire carriages (paraphrased).
My question is this: What does this mean in the context of an owner of a replica cap & ball revolver, (Uberti, Pietta, etc) but where companies exist that sell cartridge-capable replacement cylinders. Because companies sell these cylinders that fit perfectly into an owner's cap & ball revolver, does that mean that the owner's cap & ball revolver is now "readily convertible"? Or does it mean that the cap & ball owner must also own the cartridge-capable replacement cylinder for this condition to be enforceable? Is there any case law on this?
Thank you for any facts or opinions
Comment