Redefining Antique Firearms To Strengthen 2nd Amendment Righ
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:01 pmhttp://www.gnd.com/redefining-antique-f ... ce=taboola
A new bill offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) would re-define the classification of an antique firearm for the purposes of federal law. Designated H.R. 4547, "To modify the definition of 'antique firearm,'" dated May 1, 2014, it would deliver a symbolic blow for Second Amendment rights, even though it would remove only a small fraction of firearms from federal control. More to the point, it has the potential to make its opponents look particularly silly if they choose to try to equate an obscure rule change affecting 100-year-old firearms with controlling "assault guns."
Currently, any individual firearm - rifle, shotgun or handgun - manufactured during or before 1898 is exempt from all federal firearms laws. They are not just considered to be antiques, they are specifically not defined as firearms, even if they are still functioning and capable of firing modern ammunition. Firearms in this classification can be bought and sold by anyone, anywhere and at any time, without any restrictions or paperwork. This cut-off date was negotiated during the debates over the Gun Control Act of 1968, which dramatically changed the rules on how firearms could be bought and sold across state lines. The 1898 cut-off date was considered a reasonable compromise at the time, separating 19th century (and older) guns from modern technology. This dividing date has remained unchanged for 45 years, and is now seen as particularly arbitrary in the 21st century, when the division between "assault guns" and old-fashioned bolt-actions rarely enters into gun control debates. Rep. Cassidy, whose strong interest in Second Amendment issues has earned him a solid "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, is proposing to change that date by a modest amount to just firearms manufactured on or before 1913.
This date still leaves newer guns - including military firearms from World War One - under federal control. On that basis, opposition to the bill would seem pointless to all but the strongest gun control advocates. Arguments against the bill look even more strident when it's pointed out that local and state laws still apply; H.R. 4547 only affects federal law. It also does not affect fully automatic firearms - machine guns - nor short-barreled guns or explosive devices, all of which would remain under current, stringent federal regulations whatever their date of manufacture. Finally, the date change only applies to specific, individual firearms made on or before that year. The change in the law does not mean, for example, that any M1903A3 rifle (the standard "assault" rifle used by doughboys in World War One) would be exempt, only individual rifles actually manufactured in or before that year.
If the practical changes would be so modest, why would Rep. Cassidy bother to draft and submit the bill and why is it being enthusiastically backed by a wide spectrum of Second Amendment advocates? Part of the reasoning can be described as simple push-back against recent gun bans. Some of the restrictions, proposed and enacted, in recent years have seemed so petty (Bayonet mounts? Really?) that lifting federal restrictions on guns that were manufactured during the Woodrow Wilson administration seems reasonable by comparison.
A new bill offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) would re-define the classification of an antique firearm for the purposes of federal law. Designated H.R. 4547, "To modify the definition of 'antique firearm,'" dated May 1, 2014, it would deliver a symbolic blow for Second Amendment rights, even though it would remove only a small fraction of firearms from federal control. More to the point, it has the potential to make its opponents look particularly silly if they choose to try to equate an obscure rule change affecting 100-year-old firearms with controlling "assault guns."
Currently, any individual firearm - rifle, shotgun or handgun - manufactured during or before 1898 is exempt from all federal firearms laws. They are not just considered to be antiques, they are specifically not defined as firearms, even if they are still functioning and capable of firing modern ammunition. Firearms in this classification can be bought and sold by anyone, anywhere and at any time, without any restrictions or paperwork. This cut-off date was negotiated during the debates over the Gun Control Act of 1968, which dramatically changed the rules on how firearms could be bought and sold across state lines. The 1898 cut-off date was considered a reasonable compromise at the time, separating 19th century (and older) guns from modern technology. This dividing date has remained unchanged for 45 years, and is now seen as particularly arbitrary in the 21st century, when the division between "assault guns" and old-fashioned bolt-actions rarely enters into gun control debates. Rep. Cassidy, whose strong interest in Second Amendment issues has earned him a solid "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, is proposing to change that date by a modest amount to just firearms manufactured on or before 1913.
This date still leaves newer guns - including military firearms from World War One - under federal control. On that basis, opposition to the bill would seem pointless to all but the strongest gun control advocates. Arguments against the bill look even more strident when it's pointed out that local and state laws still apply; H.R. 4547 only affects federal law. It also does not affect fully automatic firearms - machine guns - nor short-barreled guns or explosive devices, all of which would remain under current, stringent federal regulations whatever their date of manufacture. Finally, the date change only applies to specific, individual firearms made on or before that year. The change in the law does not mean, for example, that any M1903A3 rifle (the standard "assault" rifle used by doughboys in World War One) would be exempt, only individual rifles actually manufactured in or before that year.
If the practical changes would be so modest, why would Rep. Cassidy bother to draft and submit the bill and why is it being enthusiastically backed by a wide spectrum of Second Amendment advocates? Part of the reasoning can be described as simple push-back against recent gun bans. Some of the restrictions, proposed and enacted, in recent years have seemed so petty (Bayonet mounts? Really?) that lifting federal restrictions on guns that were manufactured during the Woodrow Wilson administration seems reasonable by comparison.