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)

14 Upvotes

90% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.