Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    19
    https://nfa.ca/2005/02/25/antique-an...wder-firearms/

    Under the current legislation, “any antique firearm” (including, apparently, a loaded one) is not a “firearm” for the following purposes:

    1. Firearms Act: None of the provisions of the Firearms Act, including those requiring registration, licences, ATTs and/or ATCs, apply to any “antique firearm.”
    2. CC s. 91 and 92: Possession of any “antique firearm” without a licence or registration certificate is legal.
    3. CC s. 93: Possession of any “antique firearm” at any location is legal.

    4. CC s. 94: Being in a motor vehicle with any “antique firearm” is legal.
    5. CC s. 95: Being in possession of a loaded “antique firearm” (which is also a “restricted firearm” or a “prohibited firearm”), or one with readily accessible ammunition is legal even if the person is not the holder of any licence, registration certificate, ATT, or ATC.
    6. CC s. 99: Transferring or offering to transfer any “antique firearm” is legal.
    7. CC s. 100: Dealing in any type of any “antique firearm” is legal.
    8. CC s. 101: Transferring any “antique firearm” is legal if the transfer apparently violates the Firearms Act.
    9. CC s. 103 and 104: Importing or exporting any “antique firearm” is legal.
    10. CC s. 105: Not reporting the loss or finding of any “antique firearm” is legal.
    11. CC s. 106 and 107: Not reporting the destruction of any “antique firearm” is legal, and knowingly making a false report of that type to a firearms official or the police is legal.
    12. CC s. 117.03: A peace officer who finds a person in possession of any “antique firearm” is not authorized to demand that the person present a licence, registration certificate, ATT, and/or ATC.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyboybc View Post
    This post confuses me as according to NFA Canada:
    "no FAC, licence, ATT, ATC, registration certificate, transfer procedure, or documentation is required for any transfer, transportation, or possession of any “antique firearm.” Also, as CC s. 84(3) says, nothing in the Firearms Act applies to any “antique firearm.” https://nfa.ca/2005/02/25/antique-an...wder-firearms/

    So why was your friend even trying to get "antique status"? NO documentation is required. We carry proof of the legislation and proof of status just to appease police. It's in no way required.

    CFC (which does not exist anymore it's the RCMP now) is NOT involved in any way. They can not "refuse Antique Status" as they don't GRANT such status nor are you required to even contact them if you have an antique. Or rather an antique breech plug with appropriate length barrel (Same class the breech plug came from).
    The CFP does classify a thing as a restricted firearm. To avoid restricted classification, it is necessary to be able to prove that the thing actually qualifies as a deemed or prescribed antique. If you have a gun that you believe to be antique you aren't required to clear it with the CFP. But if it ever attracts attention, you had better be able to demonstrate antique status, because otherwise a charge of possession of an unregistered restricted firearm could be laid.
    Don't take the breechplug thing too far. There is nothing in the law, or case law precedents that a breechplug is the receiver of a lock, stock and barrel firearm.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyboybc View Post
    This post confuses me as according to NFA Canada:
    "no FAC, licence, ATT, ATC, registration certificate, transfer procedure, or documentation is required for any transfer, transportation, or possession of any “antique firearm.” Also, as CC s. 84(3) says, nothing in the Firearms Act applies to any “antique firearm.” https://nfa.ca/2005/02/25/antique-an...wder-firearms/

    So why was your friend even trying to get "antique status"? NO documentation is required. We carry proof of the legislation and proof of status just to appease police. It's in no way required.

    CFC (which does not exist anymore it's the RCMP now) is NOT involved in any way. They can not "refuse Antique Status" as they don't GRANT such status nor are you required to even contact them if you have an antique. Or rather an antique breech plug with appropriate length barrel (Same class the breech plug came from).
    Well the problem is they did refuse to issue the paperwork that they were antique and would not budge. Both were recently sold on CGN and were antique and both buyers wanted that appropriate paper work so when the seller applied for it he was point blank refused. Both were very rare and in the end both buyers took them registered as restricted knowing they may never get a another opportunity to add it to their collection.

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by weasel View Post
    There is nothing in the law, or case law precedents that a breechplug is the receiver of a lock, stock and barrel firearm.
    Direct quote from NFA

    With muzzle-loading firearms, one of the severe problems is that there is no “frame or receiver” in many such firearms. The CFC issued a rather witless answer, which the NFA is exploiting, saying that the breech plug in such a firearm is the “frame or receiver” because the barrel screws onto it. Therefore, the breech plug IS the “firearm” — and is the ONLY part of your muzzle-loader that requires registration

    So this comes directly from CFC. The breech plug IS the firearm. If it is antique then it is a NON firearm requiring no registration. You only have to be able to prove that the breech plug is a genuine antique.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    179
    As NFA pointed out, a witless statement. No substantiation, no precedents. Go for it. Fill yer boots. Place your trust in it.

  6. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by weasel View Post
    As NFA pointed out, a witless statement. No substantiation, no precedents. Go for it. Fill yer boots. Place your trust in it.
    I do not understand. Are you saying that I cannot rely on the guidance of CFC and RCMP?

    They make the rules.

    So who is the authority?

    CFC said "breech plugs" RCMP answered with "barrels". SOMETHING has to be the equivalent to the "frame or receiver" or you could not replace your FLINT on an antique.

    All I can do is follow the guidelines set out by the authorities. The authorities say "breech" and "barrel" depending on who it was.

    If BOTH were documented antiques how could I possibly go wrong?

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    179
    No, you don't understand. But it doesn't matter. Do as you please. No one cares.

  8. #28
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    19
    I ask again....politely.

    Are you saying that in letters where both the CFC and the RCMP SPECIFICALLY provided public guidance on how to stay within the law that they both are wrong and can not be relied on as the authorities that they are?

    CFC said "breech plugs" RCMP answered with "barrels". SOMETHING has to be the equivalent to the "frame or receiver" or you could not replace your FLINT on an antique.

    All I can do is follow the guidelines set out by the authorities. The authorities say "breech" and "barrel" depending on who it was.

    If BOTH were documented antiques how could I possibly go wrong?
    Last edited by Flyboybc; 06-18-2020 at 03:51 PM.

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    19
    Exactly what paperwork was refused? There IS no paperwork that specifies any particular weapon as an antique. Period. No such thing.

    Do you mean an import exemption? That is granted by Customs. Has nothing to do with RCMP or CFC or do you mean an "RCMP Letter"? Those are in no way required, they are not official as they always say "as per the information you provided". Which makes them basically meaningless.
    Last edited by Flyboybc; 06-18-2020 at 12:59 PM.

  10. #30
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    19
    What about just firing antique pistols on Crown land? It's the law of the land that this is perfectly legal but 99% of conservation and police officers probably have no idea that this is the case and will want to bust you for having ANY kind of pistol outside of a range.

    I am quite sure that there is no case law that has ever found that antique pistols are OK in the bush but that IS the law and people are doing it and when they meet an officer they explain and show documentation that proves the antique status of the weapon and shows the appropriate part of the law that makes this activity legal.

    The same should go for using an antique breech plug and barrel with new parts fitted. Demonstrate the antique status of your breech plug and barrel and show the CFC letter that states categorically that the breech plug is considered equivalent to the "frame or receiver" then show the RCMP letter that says the same thing about the barrel.

    How is it in any way different?

    P.S. You HAVE convinced me that using just the breech plug is too much of a crap shoot as the RCMP did opine that the barrel was the equivalent to the "frame or receiver" while the now defunct CFC was of the opinion that it was just the breech plug so I plan to use both but I see NO reason to think I will have difficulty even with a brand new stock and lock. Just to allay any issues it will also be "antiqued" so as to not stir any suspicion in the first place.

    "Case law" be damned there absolutely MUST be an equivalent to a "frame and receiver" on a lock stock and barrel weapon or you could never replace any part of it including the FLINT and it sure as HELL is NOT the stock or the lock!

    .........................QED...................... .....
    Last edited by Flyboybc; 06-18-2020 at 05:57 PM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Legalities of explosive reactive targets?
    By KB_TheDireWolf in forum Newbie FAQs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-10-2017, 08:58 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 07-16-2014, 09:04 AM
  3. Legalities of Hunting on Horseback?
    By Candychikita in forum Hunting
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-25-2014, 04:01 PM
  4. Legalities of...
    By FALover in forum General Firearms Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-21-2013, 07:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •