r/canadaguns • u/Spread-Hour • Apr 04 '26
Application / Regulation advice Policy question regarding 'antique' status on firearms.
Why do antique models of firearms (m1861 springfield rifle and colt m1861 navy for example) made before 1898 qualify as 'antique', while the exact same models produced in 1899 or later qualify as non restricted and restricted firearms? Sorry if this sounds dumb, but I dont understand the logic here. I would understand if they weren't muzzleloaders, which load, shoot, and preform nearly the same as every other type (flint/wheel/match/serpentine-lock), but unlike the rest, cant be antique while being repros. why?
(P.S this is a repost of my post from r/canadianlaw)
15
u/Fine-Tie2651 Apr 04 '26
There’s far less of those antique guns than there are produced after 1899. I would assume this has to do with the law being designed in a way to make things prohibitively rare or expensive for widespread ownership. Essentially the antique handguns are already prohibitively expensive or rare for widespread ownership. They cost upwards of 3-5k and the ammo is rare.
14
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Fine-Tie2651 Apr 04 '26
Did you just get your pal within the last year? Because it sounds like it with that statement. Canadian firearms law although often nonsensical is sometimes still designed to restrict widespread ownership. For example the 18.5” minimum barrel length for semi autos was introduced for two reasons. 1.The m1 carbine was widely available and was - light semi auto and had a detachable magazine. But its barrel was 16” 2. The minimum barrel length in the US for rifles before becoming a SBR was 16”.
Making the minimum barrel length 18.5” puts most American semi autos out of reach for non restricteds. This law is no mistake and neither is the antique laws. Having said this, the antique laws are designed specifically to keep newly and mass manufactured concealable handguns out of the general populace.
4
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Ok-Raise-5115 Apr 04 '26
It’s a catch 22. You don’t need a pal to purchase or carry the antique handgun but you need a pal to purchase the powder to reload the casings since you can’t buy the ammo
-1
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/EliteDuck Apr 04 '26
Incorrect. Reloading equipment and components now need a PAL as of C-21 passing.
1
u/Fine-Tie2651 Apr 04 '26
It’s in the reverse. The law exists to prevent newly produced antique firearms from being bought without a license or so I would assume. Gov’t wouldn’t want all sorts of people in the backcountry hiking with a cattleman revolver.
2
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Fine-Tie2651 Apr 04 '26
I would suggest reading more on the history of this particular law as even I don’t quite understand it
1
Apr 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/Spread-Hour Apr 04 '26
Yeah but dude a colt 1861? Its cap'n ball. It literally takes upwards of 3+ minutes to reload with a set-up. Probably way more time consuming with just paper cartidges! (Its also black powder and .36 cal; not exactly the strongest pistol out there)
1
u/mechant_papa Apr 04 '26
In the same way that 4.1 inches is just a bit longer than the barrel length of the Luger.
4
12
u/SquidMeister12 Apr 04 '26
An actual answer here is that the government made as narrow definition as possible to exempt the fewest firearms possible to ensure that their gun control regime applied to as many guns as possible.
Bore diameter? Takes away any turn of the century cartridge firearms in more modern calibres (.303, 8mm Mauser, etc)
No repeating long guns: Need a license for that there original lever action from 1875, 1895 Lee enfield, 1893 Mauser etc.
Calibre restrictions on handguns? Oh lookie there, almost all of the American made revolvers that would qualify for antiques based on age are now not considered antiques. Seems those would be most prevalent in North America for some reason
Etc etc etc
3
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 04 '26
Think about it this way regular Canadian firearm law is a stupid quagmire antique firearm law is just pure stupidty with no logic sense to it whatsoever. To the point I remember asking on the AMA on the ex CFO person a similar question about why the hell the antique laws were they way they were and they didn't even know.
2
u/Spread-Hour Apr 04 '26
Funfact I asked the exact question in the post to someone in the CFP and they said "well, that's just the way it is idk what to tell you." (Not that exact line but she had a wicked mean tone to her voice so im assuming thats what she meant.)
2
u/Tough-Air-4765 Apr 04 '26
Same reason why why a reproduction flint lock pistol is restricted all hand guns are to be restricted due to some definition of been operated with a single hand. It doesn't make any sense based on the idea that "antique" firearms are not firearms except the ones we decide are for hand guns if it is chambered in 45Long Colt no matter the age is a restricted handgun, the same applies to rifles you could have a martini action rebarreled in 1890 to .303 british and it is consider a "modern" firearms that tou need your PAL to own since iirc the caliber has to be above 8.6 mm and made before December 31 1897 to be considered a antique. Most of this goes out the window when talking about long guns that operate on a flint/wheel lock or match/fuse operation of ignition they are not considered "firearms" for general use and ownership purposes. You can if you had the money or machinery and knowledge could make a 42pdr Naval gun like on HMS Victory and have it fully functional because it meets all the criteria to be considered a non firearm and I own a small cannon and other people own and trade in cannons of significant size so it is possible.
1
u/spaceymonkey2 Apr 04 '26
If I recall correctly, someone had answered on another post that it was because those guns were 100 years old when they made that law.
3
u/Spread-Hour Apr 04 '26
No Im asking why percussion cap muskets are restricted while a flintlock isnt. They're the exact same barr ignition system
2
u/HornyGoatWeedGuzzler Apr 04 '26
Aren't modern production flintlocks non restricted?
2
u/Spread-Hour Apr 04 '26
No, repro production flintlock long-guns are antiques. Repro percussion cap long-guns arent however. They're non-restricted
3
u/InitialAd4125 Apr 05 '26
The only reason I ever heard that at least is a fun story although dubious factualness is that flintlocks are classed as antiques because a reenactor went to court showed them 3 different types of flintlock one that was 100's of years old a modern one and one that had a mix of them and asked them if they could tell which was which they weren't able to and made them antique class.
1
u/SonOfJaak Apr 04 '26
It's because the US has a Customs law that specifies any guns from 1898 or older as antiques. The government wanted to keep things streamlined for cross border trade.
You have to remember that the government know nothing about firearms.
1
u/16gaugeguy16 Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26
Unpopular opinion:
People act like it is arbitrary, and it's not. Does it make entire sense? No. But it was an attempt to allow people to buy and sell historical firearms while introducing stricter laws around handguns.
Around 1898-1900, there were pretty huge improvements in firearms technology with handguns. So the line got drawn somewhere. They also excluded common calibers (45 colt, 44-40, etc) as they were meant to be historically niche/collectible and not guns that anyone could get ammo for to shoot. That's why almost everyone has to reload for the handguns that are antique now.
If they allowed modern cap and ball revolvers to be sold as antiques, there would be a proliferation of them being used by target shooters, hunters, and unfortunately maybe people who shouldn't have access to a handgun rather than mostly by the collectors market
3
u/Spread-Hour Apr 04 '26
Your revolver argument makes total sense and I see where they were coming from, but what about flint/match/wheel/serpentine-lock pistols? And percussion cap muskets?
1
u/SirKickBan Apr 04 '26
I'm not the other guy, but to chime in with my own two cents: Part of it is just a consequence of needing to have a definition for the law to work off of.
If they simply said that all firearms ignited by a flint-based mechanism were not considered firearms and allowed to be unregulated, there's room in that definition for the production and use of things that can effectively behave like a modern regulated firearm without being subject to regulations. But by putting a time-based restriction on it they can preemptivley close a lot of loopholes.
You can still disagree with the year chosen, of course, I'm not necessarily saying they made the right call. Just that that's often the nature of laws; some definition has to be made, and it's often made with an eye towards preventing unwanted loopholes by making those sorts of broad categorizations. Another example would be their much more recent law banning any semi-automatic firearm designed to accept a magazine with more than fire rounds, if it's designed after December 15, 2023. It's a great big catch-all likely intended as a better 'permanent fix' compared to their current list-based ban system, where any Turk with a machine shop and a dream could sell semi-automatic rifles in Canada because their specific brand of firearm hadn't yet been added to the list. Whether you like the law or not, that broad, date-based ban leaves little room for loopholes compared to its alternatives.
2
u/Spread-Hour Apr 04 '26
If they simply said that all firearms ignited by a flint-based mechanism were not considered firearms and allowed to be unregulated, there's room in that definition for the production and use of things that can effectively behave like a modern regulated firearm without being subject to regulations. But by putting a time-based restriction on it they can preemptivley close a lot of loopholes.
Sorry but how would you make a muzzeloading gun with a percussion cap based ignition system into something that can 'effectively behave like a modern regulated firearm'? And no disrespect at all but I never said anything about a flint-based ignition system.
I mean this in 100% good faith and I mean not to offend, but do you know much/anything about muzzleloaders and how they operate? We're talking about guns that - with the touch of a very skilled soldier/marksman can output a max rpm of 3. Maybe 4 if he purchased some over the counter cocaine gum. I dont see how putting powder in a pan and putting a cap on a nipple is so different as to require that the latter be a non-restricted firearm.
1
u/nschwart91 Apr 04 '26
I would personally feel much safer if the ne're-do-wells shooting up our cities were using black powder revolvers rather than smuggled American guns.
2
u/Spread-Hour Apr 04 '26
Fouling and misfires so bad that if everyone in a mall was standing still and not running the max amount of kills the dastardly individual would rack up would be like 3 (including himself)
1
u/3e_Design Apr 05 '26
rumor has it that a liberal senator did not want to register HIS gun collection so the law was crafted so everything in his collection was exempt from registration. to me, it seems to be the only rational reason that people with no firearms knowledge would craft the rules as they did.
72
u/84camaroguy Apr 04 '26
There is no logic. Don’t look for logic in Canadian firearms law.