If the guns covered are not considered firearms by Federal definition, I have never understood the purposed/need for a license. I know, part of it is because the Feds say so. But, really, why?
If a gun was made before 1899, it is not considered a firearm by Federal definition and there is no need for a license. If a gun was made over 50 years ago (before 1962 at the time of this post) it is still considered a firearm, but is classified as a Relic and eligible for purchase with a C&R license.
Two very different definitions.