Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
After all these years, why does Rock Island Auction insist on using the outdated information provided by George Madis as their basis for the date of manufacture?
Well, I think I know the answer to that one. If erroneous information is presented that makes a Winchester rifle an antique, even though it may not be, it can sell for more, thereby generating more profits for Rock Island Auction.
Not exactly particularly ethical.
Is it even legal?
Online
It won’t be legal if they ship the gun in question directly to the buyer without the proper paperwork and FFL licenses at both ends.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
It won’t be legal if they ship the gun in question directly to the buyer without the proper paperwork and FFL licenses at both ends.
Bert
That’s what I would have expected. Why are they allowed to get away with it? Especially an entity this large.
In so many ways, this particular auction house’s ethics are questionable.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Bert H. said
It won’t be legal if they ship the gun in question directly to the buyer without the proper paperwork and FFL licenses at both ends.
Bert
I don’t think BATFE is especially interested in this type of transaction but I won’t chance it. As a C&R holder I know collectors are not a huge priority for BATFE but I think that’s due in part to our collective due diligence in abiding with federal firearms laws. It disturbs me that erroneous dates are commonly used when the correct date is easily available. I don’t think the BATFE will prosecute someone for using the wrong date to avoid properly transferring a firearm but there’s nothing that says they can’t or won’t. Count me out, my attorney charges many times what I make per hour.
Mike
mrcvs said
That’s what I would have expected. Why are they allowed to get away with it? Especially an entity this large.
In so many ways, this particular auction house’s ethics are questionable.
I also have a problem with RIA knowingly using incorrect DOM information but I also take issue with the Congressman or Senator back in the day that decided 1898 was the cut off date for antique status to reflect on their own collection.
RickC said
I also have a problem with RIA knowingly using incorrect DOM information but I also take issue with the Congressman or Senator back in the day that decided 1898 was the cut off date for antique status to reflect on their own collection.
I remember the new GCA 68 back then. With all the new restrictions on “modern” guns, we thought 1898 was pretty good. It allowed a lot of very available cartridge guns to be transferred unrestricted. No one was thinking 50+ years down the road to now. At that time, with all the political support for gun control, we thought the future for private ownership of firearms was bleak. A lot guys got into pre-1899 guns only. I’m doing that now.
Why wouldn’t the seller be the guilty party in this situation?
The buyer hasn”t done anything illegal by just buying the gun.
The seller is the one who initiates the illegal process by shipping the gun to a private party instead of a FFL.
The way I see it, the only way the private party would get in trouble by violating a state or Federal law would be if somehow a local law enforcement agency found out that the gun was not an “antique” and was not legally registered in the state through a FFL.
In the past, I’ve bought a couple of guns at a local FFL gun shop that were supposed to be “antique”. I still had to do the registration process, but I didn’t have to wait the 10 day waiting period to take it home in CA. I guess they were being extra careful to protect themselves from any legal problems.
jampard said
Why wouldn’t the seller be the guilty party in this situation?The buyer hasn”t done anything illegal by just buying the gun.
The seller is the one who initiates the illegal process by shipping the gun to a private party instead of a FFL.
The way I see it, the only way the private party would get in trouble by violating a state or Federal law would be if somehow a local law enforcement agency found out that the gun was not an “antique” and was not legally registered in the state through a FFL.
In the past, I’ve bought a couple of guns at a local FFL gun shop that were supposed to be “antique”. I still had to do the registration process, but I didn’t have to wait the 10 day waiting period to take it home in CA. I guess they were being extra careful to protect themselves from any legal problems.
The seller is the guilty party… but so is the buyer if he knowingly accepts shipment of firearm. In the eyes of the law, “ignorance of the law” is no excuse. In this situation, an aggressive prosecutor can nail both the seller and the buyer to the proverbial wall.
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 7, 2015
Offline
On top of the federal charges Bert detailed above there’s a possibility of state charges for some jurisdictions. Another good illustration of “buyer beware”.
Mike
I’m not making this an argument but from a LE background for 32years I would find it hard to believe the buyer would ever get charged unless proof of knowledge & or intent were proven.
The buyer is purchasing a firearm from a well-known established respectable(questionable) auction house & may not have any real experience or knowledge with firearms antique status etc. The buyer may have wanted to purchase it for his grandfather who use to own one or vice versa.
I don’t see the buyer being charged if he has the information on the sale & met all the criteria for possession. Over zealous investigator or prosecutor? yes Maybe, but I don’t think it would wash legally.
RickC
November 7, 2015
Offline
Maybe so, Rick, but my goal is to never be investigated or charged. I have an extensive LE background but I’ve also seen ATF agents interacting with licensees and I’ve yet to see a “good old boy” situation. True, a conviction is unlikely but legal representation for an arrest even if charges were eventually dropped would cost thousands of dollars. A trial resulting in acquittal would be several times that. I don’t want to give the BATFE any reason to scrutinize me or gun collectors as a group. I think for the most part they trust us to know the applicable laws and abide by them and I don’t want to betray that trust.
Mike
I’m with Mike on this issue, and those who know that our trust is all important. When I think of outlaws/lawlessness today, I think of our government officials at all levels who support the criminals that riot, burn, loot and murder across our country.
James
I’m with Mike too. In this state you are guilty until proven innocent. Who knows what your collection would look like if and or when you may get it back?
Chuck said
I’m with Mike too. In this state you are guilty until proven innocent. Who knows what your collection would look like if and or when you may get it back?
That’s scary, too, for the reasons stated.
James
Add me to the list. It is always the prudent choice to abide by all the laws & regulations, whether or not you believe them to be reasonable or not. When the opportunity presents itself, voice your opinions, thoughts and ideas with your elected representatives. In the meantime, do not intentionally flaunt or break any laws, as doing so does not reflect well on us as “collectors”.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
I think that abiding by the “letter” of a law, and abiding by the “intent” of a law are sometimes two different things.
That’s why a fair judge is so important in a trial situation. The “letter” of a law is written by human beings who are not infallible.
I think that fair judges would hopefully follow the “intent” of a law rather than the “letter” of a law in most cases.
I think most everyone agrees that the January 1, 1899 date is an arbitrary date for the antique vs modern firearm status. There isn’t a common sense reason for specifying this particular date I don’t think.
Take a hypothetical situation where you have 2 identical as possible guns. One was “manufactured” on December 31, 1898, and the other on January 1, 1899.
According to the law, one is classified as “antique”, and the other is classified as “modern”. What a difference one day makes.
In another hypothetical situation, let’s say there is a gun that some records indicate it was “manufactured” on December 31, 1898, and there were other records that indicate it was “manufactured” on January 1, 1899.
I guess that I’m just trying to show how silly this law is as regarding to the safety of the public or intention to defraud.
I think that probably at the time whomever wrote this law, they assumed there would be very few “antique” guns that were still operational.
Anyway, that’s just some of my thoughts on this subject.
jampard said
I think most everyone agrees that the January 1, 1899 date is an arbitrary date for the antique vs modern firearm status. There isn’t a common sense reason for specifying this particular date I don’t think.
Of course, this is opinion, but most gun control laws make little sense, and most are just not common sense, largely because most legislators have no firearms experience whatsoever.
In any event, the date is a little more than arbitrary. When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was drafted, it was determined that the Mauser 1898 was truly a modern firearm and this is where “modern” firearms began. So, therefore, the year 1898 was selected. It should have been that anything prior to 1898 was antique, but due to a clerical error, it became pre-1899. That’s why I believe for those who are into Mauser 1898’s, a Mauser produced in 1898 is significantly more valuable than one produced after 1898.
I know the answer because I researched this some time ago. I originally believed that legislators picked 1898, or pre-1899 as the cutoff because a gun in 1968 that was produced 1898 or before was 70 years old or more at that time and I thought perhaps this was the reason for it–and, perhaps, why shouldn’t this be a rolling date, such that anytime a firearm reaches 70 years of age, it could be considered antique. And, that’s the reason.
The problem with having a date such as anything 70 years or greater is that firearms such as the AR-15 could be considered antique in 6 years time as the first ones were produced in 1956. Vastly different than that old Winchester in the back of the closet…
My opinion, if one is even going to have gun control, as it does seem to be contrary to common sense…point your firearm in a safe direction, only fire when you know what your target is, treat every gun as though it is loaded…now that’s common sense…but, my opinion is that 1898 is too early for antique status and 1956 is too late for it. Probably anything pre-1945, the end of WWII, would seem about right.
A bit off topic, but I do not buy the 1898 Mauser theory for dating an antique. I own 1891, 1893, and 1895 Mausers and they are all just as efficient and modern in style as an 1898 Mauser. If our US congressmen were going to date an antique by a particular gun, I think they would have chosen a US military firearm, 1892 US Krag or 1903 US Springfield, not some German rifle.
jampard said
I think that abiding by the “letter” of a law, and abiding by the “intent” of a law are sometimes two different things.That’s why a fair judge is so important in a trial situation. The “letter” of a law is written by human beings who are not infallible.
I think that fair judges would hopefully follow the “intent” of a law rather than the “letter” of a law in most cases.
I think most everyone agrees that the January 1, 1899 date is an arbitrary date for the antique vs modern firearm status. There isn’t a common sense reason for specifying this particular date I don’t think.
Take a hypothetical situation where you have 2 identical as possible guns. One was “manufactured” on December 31, 1898, and the other on January 1, 1899.
According to the law, one is classified as “antique”, and the other is classified as “modern”. What a difference one day makes.
In another hypothetical situation, let’s say there is a gun that some records indicate it was “manufactured” on December 31, 1898, and there were other records that indicate it was “manufactured” on January 1, 1899.
I guess that I’m just trying to show how silly this law is as regarding to the safety of the public or intention to defraud.
I think that probably at the time whomever wrote this law, they assumed there would be very few “antique” guns that were still operational.
Anyway, that’s just some of my thoughts on this subject.
I’m with you jampard!!
RickC
1 Guest(s)
