I want some of you to drop by this website and read BATF's Sept of last year modification to previous law.  Previously, pre-1898 made Krags were considered antique firearms.  As such, they could be bought and shipped interstate with no transfer required.  But look at the new definition:  "For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Antique Firearms” means any firearm not intended or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade." We were being all woeful that Krag ammo was no longer being made in the US!  Some of us would have been better off if Remington had not resumed production!  Exactly what does it mean?  It means that if I wish to sell one of my antiques to someone in another state, I'd have to ship it to a FFL, whereas I didn't have to before!  My antique is no longer an antique even though it was made prior to 1898!  It means that even if someone lists a pre-1898 Krag as an antique, and they're out of your state, you could get it trouble for buying it without the transfer.  I know, we used to try to get an idea of the serial # range needed to meet the old definition, but that doesn't matter with this relatively new one!  92s and 96s would no longer be antiques because they use fixed ammunition that is manufactured in the US!  Someone tell me I'm not reading this right!  Change in view was effective Sep 2016, when Obama's DOJ was interpreting things.   (You need to Login

Sorry I did not see this sooner, but I got disinterested after Obama decided that the disabled shouldn't play with guns!  I let my C&R license expire then.  I guess I'll have to apply again now that Trump eliminated that executive order.  Now to find out who to contact to get this daffinition put back the way it was!  Title 18 reads the same!  Reason I was researching this area, I was trying to talk someone into shipping a 96 to me without transfer as it was once legal to do.  I was wrong!

madsenshooter wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 2:59am:

. . . Title 18 reads the same! . . .

Are you sure about Title 18? Text I found at GPO site seems to apply the "no longer manufactured" bit only to replicas. Note the "or" here -

(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;

  (You need to Login

Confusion may arise from the fact that "firearm" under the NFA is a tighter definition, covering only the short-barrel types, machineguns, silencers, "destructive devices". Consequently, a pre-1899 7mm "potato digger" is a non-antique "firearm" under Title 26, but that '96 Krag would be antique per Title 18 - unless I'm missing something. (Not a lawyer!)

Looks to me to be nearly the same wording as above.

(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 ....

Ok Parashooter, I see your point.  If one ignores the parantheses and what it contains, which one should if they don't apply to you, in the first sentence of para (A), one gets:
(A) any firearm manufactured in or before 1898.  And the "or" of subparagraph (B) is not applicable, we're not dealing with replicas.  So maybe I wasn't wrong in my debating with the dealer!  But he probably still won't send it, as he has his own interpretation.

I guess I can stop cursing Remington's decision to make more ammo now!  Now to work on that dealer.  I got an empty slot in my collection!  If we were to go by the dealer's interpretation, which involves the fact that it uses ammunition that's made here in the US, Trapdoors in 45-70 wouldn't be antiques!

In Title 18, the "ammunition which is no longer manufactured" business is an elaboration of the replica definition in subparagraph (B) and doesn't apply to the non-replica definition in (A) - hence the "or" between the two.

See   (You need to Login

Thanks parashooter, superfluous words in law, ought to be a law agin it!  He's wrong, I'm right!  Hopefully it's someone respects your opinion, like I do!

What is flawed is people's ability to correctly read Congressional Statutes in relation to the Declaration, Articles, and the constitution.

They want to take sections of the statutues or the codified statutes out of context of the whole and base flawed arguments on the wrong presumptions.

The GCA of 1968 is a prime example of how gun people have been getting it wrong all these years.

My eyes cross and my brain hurts when I try to read those tongue-twisters, but I have always said that splitting identical firearms (such as the Krag, and 1894 Winchester) by serial number was idiotic. They should have been all in or all out, by a carefully composed list.

In my early college years, I remember a sign on a classroom wall that said: "ESCHEW OBFUSCATION", (shun confusion and obscure meaning).

I've always thought that a fair and good idea.

Many Lawyers, Government Officials and Bureaucrats excel at obfuscation and ambiguity. It's what they do. They are artists and it is their medium.

It all seems to be about control.

People in Authority, can utilize and interpret these vaguely written rules, regulations, and laws, based on who they wish to reward, trouble, or control.

Those enforcing the rules can err with impunity and have tremendous resources backing them up.

Those trying to comply with ambiguous rules can go to jail, loose property and rights, if 'deemed' to be in error.

I guess it's part of the SWAMP.

I think you're right BR.  The Obama executive order barring the disabled from firearms, believe it or not, seemed to be a direct result of me posting that his immigration executive order was unlawful.  I posted that on the whitehouse.gov page.  Wasn't long after a company that had done work for DHS checked my online resume.  Then my health records were stolen.  Then Obama came up with the executive order about the disabled, which got Trumped.  But I let my C&R expire before Trump got into office and Obama was still in.  All that just to keep me from playing with antiques!  Na, na, didn't work Obozo!

It's not anything Before 1898, it's everything made in 1898 or before.
Anything made BEFORE 1899 is antique.

This is the best explanation I have found:    (You need to Login

I am still arguing with the person, simply because I have no reason to pay a FFL to receive an obviously antique 1896 made Krag.  I have a cousin by marriage who has a FFL and lives up the street, but he doesn't give family discounts, since he has a partner in his out of town business!  There's good instruction here, on how a dealer should handle the transfer of an antique that has been in the system:    (You need to Login

Think a Krag is bad - a couple of years ago, I had to go the full paper hassle, including waiting period, and de facto "registration, on a Model 1868 .50-70!! Of course, I do live in the PRK. If I had not snared a great rarity at a very fair price, I'd have told them to f-off.

I tried to purchase a WW1 Luger magazine from a Gentleman in Great Britain, who needed it 'ID'ed, had no use for it, and mentioned it on another gun forum.

I informed him of what he had, and offered to buy it. I could have used it and would have paid him a very fair price.

Fellow forum members, from all over the Globe, kibitzed with unwanted and ill informed 'legal concerns' and totally scared the poor man. (No laws would have been broken and it would have been a perfectly safe transaction, with all the risk on me).

It was a lesson in how 'Authorities' have some gun enthusiasts totally confused and scared. It turns us on each other or makes things more complicated than necessary.

It was mistake to put BATF under the DOJ.  They are the weavers of this tangled web.  BATF doesn't help a lot, you can call in and get different answers to the same question, depending on who you connect with.

Dick Hosmer wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 1:53pm:

Think a Krag is bad - a couple of years ago, I had to go the full paper hassle, including waiting period, and de facto "registration, on a Model 1868 .50-70!! Of course, I do live in the PRK. If I had not snared a great rarity at a very fair price, I'd have told them to f-off.

Number 62 ! Wow!   :D

I was at the same place as Mr. Hosmer, trying to buy a Cadet trapdoor.  I was polite, but only just.  Salesman told me that the owner & BATF had a major argument.  BATF was looking for an excuse to put them out of business.

The 1894 Norwegian barreled action, serial #32, that was the reason I started this thread, was sold after several weeks.  It sure would have looked nice in the stock I bought not long ago, it was also Steyr made.  But I had no good reason to pay someone for something not needed.  If only Obama hadn't messed with my C&R via his unlawful executive order!  Oh well, I'd have needed another stock for my Stomperud project if I'd have got the 94.