A legal question regarding some antiques

[cjwils]

This deals with a narrow group of antique guns, so I don't know if most readers will be interested. On the other hand, you might find a new topic to be interesting. A couple years ago, I raised this topic in a forum antique gun collectors, and I didn't get any authoritative responses.

My quotes and paraphrasings of various sections of federal law come from this ATF publication: http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...f-p-5300-4.pdf

Most antique gun collectors are familiar with the definition of antiques in the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is basically that any firearm made prior to 1899 is an antique. However, in my experience, the vast majority of antique collectors are not familiar with the definition in the National Firearms Act, which indicates that a gun subject to the NFA is not an antique, even if made prior to 1899, if it can use readily available rim fire or center fire ammo. Guns subject to the NFA include a group called "any other weapon." The list of items under "any other weapon" includes this: "a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell."

Here is the problem for antique collectors (whether they know it or not): A significant number of .22 rimfire pistols made prior to 1899 were made with smooth bores. If you dared to risk it (firing an antique gun with modern ammo), you could probably fire many of these pistols with off-the-shelf .22 shot shells. So, are these smooth bore .22 pistols made prior to 1899 subject to the NFA because they can fire shot shells?

I am hoping that some exception will apply. Maybe somewhere along the line, BATF or some court ruled that a .22 shot shell is not "fixed shotgun shell", as mentioned under "any other weapon."

Here is another possible exception: The exact quote says "a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore DESIGNED OR REDESIGNED to fire a fixed shotgun shell." (My emphasis with capitals.) According to information I got on a web forum for antique cartridge collectors, the .22 shot shell probably did not come on the market until the mid 1880's. Most of the smooth bore .22 rimfire pistols that I know of were designed, manufactured, and went out of production before then. So, could one safely assume that a smooth bore .22 pistol designed well before the availability of .22 shot shells was not "designed or redesigned" to fire a "fixed shotgun shell", since the designer would not have known about the future existence of .22 shot shells?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by cjwils

Here is another possible exception: The exact quote says "a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore DESIGNED OR REDESIGNED to fire a fixed shotgun shell." (My emphasis with capitals.) According to information I got on a web forum for antique cartridge collectors, the .22 shot shell probably did not come on the market until the mid 1880's. Most of the smooth bore .22 rimfire pistols that I know of were designed, manufactured, and went out of production before then. So, could one safely assume that a smooth bore .22 pistol designed well before the availability of .22 shot shells was not "designed or redesigned" to fire a "fixed shotgun shell", since the designer would not have known about the future existence of .22 shot shells?

Unfortunately, it might come down to convincing a jury of that definition. It would depend on how much someone wanted to make a case of it.

Factually, you are correct, as is the rest of your research.

[Frank Ettin]

This is one of those issues for which it becomes absolutely necessary to thoroughly research the case law. If there is some relevant case law, you can have some idea how another court might rule on the same or similar question. If there is no case law, it's a roll of the dice.