Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
mrcvs said
I just don’t understand how an auction house this large can skirt the rules, or even laws, so blatantly, and no one seems to care? My guess is if they were a much smaller player, things might be a little different.
Because they are NOT skirting the rules if they are abiding by ATF’s definition of “antique”! ATF makes the rules, not WACA, not Cody Museum, not even Bert himself, & if ATF chooses to continue using Madis’ numbers (which, evidently, they do, Bert’s protests to the contrary), RI is breaking no law. You think an operation the size of RI is without competent legal counsel? (I see Bert deleted by previous response as he always does when he can’t refute my logic.)
This discrepancy in the dating between Madis’ numbers & those of Cody provides collectors with a slight “break,” if they can legally have a gun shipped to their home, rather than having to drive 20 m & pay $50 for a FFL transfer as I do for “modern” guns. So WHY is WACA on a “mission” to deny fellow collectors this “break” that ATF has obviously decided to turn a blind eye to?
Online
clarence said
mrcvs said
I just don’t understand how an auction house this large can skirt the rules, or even laws, so blatantly, and no one seems to care? My guess is if they were a much smaller player, things might be a little different.
Because they are NOT skirting the rules if they are abiding by ATF’s definition of “antique”! ATF makes the rules, not WACA, not Cody Museum, not even Bert himself, & if ATF chooses to continue using Madis’ numbers (which, evidently, they do, Bert’s protests to the contrary), RI is breaking no law. You think an operation the size of RI is without competent legal counsel? (I see Bert deleted by previous response as he always does when he can’t refute my logic.)
This discrepancy in the dating between Madis’ numbers & those of Cody provides collectors with a slight “break,” if they can legally have a gun shipped to their home, rather than having to drive 20 m & pay $50 for a FFL transfer as I do for “modern” guns. So WHY is WACA on a “mission” to deny fellow collectors this “break” that ATF has obviously decided to turn a blind eye to?
Clarence,
Your lack of knowledge of this subject is painfully obvious to anyone with any modicum of legal knowledge.
It is NOT the BATF that “makes the rules”. Instead, they are simply the enforcement agency. The rules were created by and are part of the U.S. Federal Code. Whether or not the BATF enforces that code is their decision. Unlike you, I have actually communicated directly with the BATF concerning what is and is not “antique” as it relates to Winchester firearms. Their current stance is that it is of no real concern to them until a violent crime is committed by someone using an old Winchester. They have much bigger fish to fry so-to-speak. That does not mean that I (or WACA) advocate or endorse anyone to violate Federal law.
In regard to your inane accusation “So WHY is WACA on a “mission” to deny fellow collectors this “break” that ATF has obviously decided to turn a blind eye to?”, nothing could be further from the truth. My sole intent is to inform any interested person(s) (collectors) what is actually legal per U.S. Federal Code, and to advocate adhering to the established law.
I deleted your post because you (through your statements) appear to be in support of violating Federal law. I will not tolerate or allow that behavior on this forum. If you continue to argue with my position on this topic, all of your future posts will be censored accordingly. You have been warned!
Bert – WACA Admin
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
mrcvs said
I just don’t understand how an auction house this large can skirt the rules, or even laws, so blatantly, and no one seems to care? My guess is if they were a much smaller player, things might be a little different.
It has nothing to do with the size of the company. It is the regulators who obviously have other things to do. I wouldn’t risk my collection over something like this. Someday someone is going to be the test case.
I am not a seller but believe me I try to avoid unnecessary expenses when I can.
To change the current topic and back to the rifle, I have seen those lengthwise marks on the receiver from time to time on many Winchesters does anybody know what causes that? from being in a saddle or something?
antler1 said
They are forging marks
Also sometimes referred to as striations.
Here’s a past discussion:
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/general-discussions-questions/what-causes-forging-marks/
I contacted RIA in the past regarding a similar antique identified rifle. They said they were following the criteria and serial numbers supplied to them and authorized by BATF.
I am certain RIA would not violate the law to increase the value of a firearm. RIA auctions are widely publicized, and open to view by BATF for any violation of Federal law.
I now have a C&R FFL, so it is of no concern to me.
wolfbait said
I contacted RIA in the past regarding a similar antique identified rifle. They said they were following the criteria and serial numbers supplied to them and authorized by BATF.I am certain RIA would not violate the law to increase the value of a firearm. RIA auctions are widely publicized, and open to view by BATF for any violation of Federal law.
I now have a C&R FFL, so it is of no concern to me.
You’re absolutely correct about RIA–all these silly wails of “how do they get away with it!” to the contrary; they have better sense than to jeopardize a muti-million dollar business.
But there’s one concern your C&R won’t alleviate–the many FFLs who categorically REFUSE to honor a C&R! Why? C&R licensees aren’t “professionals.” One of them refused to ship an indisputable “antique” made in 1885 except to another FFL!
clarence said
But there’s one concern your C&R won’t alleviate–the many FFLs who categorically REFUSE to honor a C&R! Why? C&R licensees aren’t “professionals.” One of them refused to ship an indisputable “antique” made in 1885 except to another FFL!
I see that all the time…I imagine they’ve been ruined by other shady folks and would rather go “all out” on security and trust no one….only reason for it. I don’t agree with it either….but I don’t let a $10 transfer stop me something I want/need. No biggie…
“But there’s one concern your C&R won’t alleviate–the many FFLs who categorically REFUSE to honor a C&R! Why? C&R licensees aren’t “professionals.” One of them refused to ship an indisputable “antique” made in 1885 except to another FFL!”
I buy many C&R firearms locally, on the internet, and from small and major auction houses. Never had a problem. I believe those uninformed people who will not accept a C&R are a very small minority.
Jeremy P said
clarence said
But there’s one concern your C&R won’t alleviate–the many FFLs who categorically REFUSE to honor a C&R! Why? C&R licensees aren’t “professionals.” One of them refused to ship an indisputable “antique” made in 1885 except to another FFL!
I see that all the time…I imagine they’ve been ruined by other shady folks and would rather go “all out” on security and trust no one….only reason for it. I don’t agree with it either….but I don’t let a $10 transfer stop me something I want/need. No biggie…
How can they be ruined by complying with a legally authorized transaction? Do what the law requires, no more, no less, & you can’t be faulted. If they thought the C&R sent them by a buyer was fake, its authenticity can be verified through ATF.
Going rate for a transfer around here is $50, PLUS a long drive to get it.
I never had an issue with my CR. Most that don’t accept in won’t ship to NY regardless. FYI the transfer fee in NY on LI is around 50-60$, so it does effect what I bid on.
wolfbait said
I buy many C&R firearms locally, on the internet, and from small and major auction houses. Never had a problem. I believe those uninformed people who will not accept a C&R are a very small minority.
It’s happened to me multiple times on GB. On guns not known to be especially popular among crooks, like Model 52s.
1 Guest(s)
