Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Online
Interesting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
steve004 said
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/4095/4/antique-special-order-winchester-model-1894-short-rifleInteresting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
Steve ,
Yeah so legally you shouldn’t need an FFL to transfer if it is classified as an antique ???
I thought it had to be manufactured before 1898 ?
Chris
Chris Sterling said
steve004 said
Interesting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
Steve ,
Yeah so legally you shouldn’t need an FFL to transfer if it is classified as an antique ???
I thought it had to be manufactured before 1898 ?
Chris
Chris –
You’re on the right track here –
Chris Sterling said
steve004 said
Interesting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
Steve ,
Yeah so legally you shouldn’t need an FFL to transfer if it is classified as an antique ???
I thought it had to be manufactured before 1898 ?
Chris
It’s actually before 1899 as the cutoff. RIA uses Madis’ numbers which have since been shown to be erroneous, but it creates more antique firearms than there really are, and that enhances value. I’m sure they have the very best legal counsel out there so I guess this is legal.
mrcvs said
Chris Sterling said
steve004 said
Interesting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
Steve ,
Yeah so legally you shouldn’t need an FFL to transfer if it is classified as an antique ???
I thought it had to be manufactured before 1898 ?
Chris
It’s actually before 1899 as the cutoff. RIA uses Madis’ numbers which have since been shown to be erroneous, but it creates more antique firearms than there really are, and that enhances value. I’m sure they have the very best legal counsel out there so I guess this is legal.
Indeed. Manufactured on December 31, 1898 or before and you have antique status. What amused me the most about the RIA description was that their statement that Madis used, “serial number data published by Winchester.” 
steve004 said
mrcvs said
Chris Sterling said
steve004 said
Interesting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
Steve ,
Yeah so legally you shouldn’t need an FFL to transfer if it is classified as an antique ???
I thought it had to be manufactured before 1898 ?
Chris
It’s actually before 1899 as the cutoff. RIA uses Madis’ numbers which have since been shown to be erroneous, but it creates more antique firearms than there really are, and that enhances value. I’m sure they have the very best legal counsel out there so I guess this is legal.
Indeed. Manufactured on December 31, 1898 or before and you have antique status. What amused me the most about the RIA description was that their statement that Madis used, “serial number data published by Winchester.”
Isn’t that considered false advertising ???
I think it’s pretty obvious that you guy’s bring up some good points here. I find it hard to believe it helps them out in any way with shipping, as the FFL, paperwork, takes a little time, but it’s not detrimental, as far as overhead goes, and we all see the large numbers that they do, overall in the auctions.
I guess I really don’t have an answer to you gentleman’s questions here, as I agree with you, on the most part and don’t understand it myself! It’s pretty cut and dry, as a pre. 1898, is considered an antique firearm!
Anthony
Chris Sterling said
steve004 said
mrcvs said
Chris Sterling said
steve004 said
Interesting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
Steve ,
Yeah so legally you shouldn’t need an FFL to transfer if it is classified as an antique ???
I thought it had to be manufactured before 1898 ?
Chris
It’s actually before 1899 as the cutoff. RIA uses Madis’ numbers which have since been shown to be erroneous, but it creates more antique firearms than there really are, and that enhances value. I’m sure they have the very best legal counsel out there so I guess this is legal.
Indeed. Manufactured on December 31, 1898 or before and you have antique status. What amused me the most about the RIA description was that their statement that Madis used, “serial number data published by Winchester.”
Isn’t that considered false advertising ???
They are being truthful – in that the Madis numbers do indeed classify this rifle as an antique. And, they also provide the ledger information that shows the date of manufacture.
For many years, the numbers Madis published were accepted as a guide to determine antique status. Many still use those numbers. Some know no better, some do.
Anthony said
I think it’s pretty obvious that you guy’s bring up some good points here. I find it hard to believe it helps them out in any way with shipping, as the FFL, paperwork, takes a little time, but it’s not detrimental, as far as overhead goes, and we all see the large numbers that they do, overall in the auctions.I guess I really don’t have an answer to you gentleman’s questions here, as I agree with you, on the most part and don’t understand it myself! It’s pretty cut and dry, as a pre. 1898, is considered an antique firearm!
Anthony
Tony –
Many collectors focus mainly on antiques, so the status can make a big difference. For some, it is a big deal to be able to have a rifle shipped directly to them vs. having to go through a transfer dealer, fill out a form, pay the fee, etc. I feel that antique status adds value.
Curio & Relic status for the gun can help a buyer with an 03 license, especially for long guns, but it depends on the seller. Big Box stores won’t bend, usually.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
November 7, 2015
Offline
This situation troubles me because I know that an overzealous member of the federal law enforcement community could turn a collector’s life upside down for doing something that we know happens on a daily basis. I also know that BATFE has not shown much interest in pursuing this type of violation but that doesn’t mean they won’t at some point. As we know a felony will likely end a gun collecting career and it’s not something I want to risk. I think the reason BATFE doesn’t concern themselves much with collectors is that we are generally a law-abiding bunch. I don’t want that to change and a pattern of sloppy transactions could certainly cause that to change.
Mike
TXGunNut said
This situation troubles me because I know that an overzealous member of the federal law enforcement community could turn a collector’s life upside down for doing something that we know happens on a daily basis. I also know that BATFE has not shown much interest in pursuing this type of violation but that doesn’t mean they won’t at some point. As we know a felony will likely end a gun collecting career and it’s not something I want to risk. I think the reason BATFE doesn’t concern themselves much with collectors is that we are generally a law-abiding bunch. I don’t want that to change and a pattern of sloppy transactions could certainly cause that to change.
Mike
Absolutely, and unfortunately, you’re correct, Mike!
Steve said,
Tony –
Many collectors focus mainly on antiques, so the status can make a big difference. For some, it is a big deal to be able to have a rifle shipped directly to them vs. having to go through a transfer dealer, fill out a form, pay the fee, etc. I feel that antique status adds value.
Steve, I was hoping that I explained my comment well enough, as I re read it, I see that it could be taken a couple different ways. I guess what I was trying to say was, I don’t understand why, some of the auction houses can’t get the information correct, and especially the dates, as far as the Winchesters are concerned, with the great informational source our Moderators have provided for us collectors, along with the many others seeking, the information, needed, to distinguish the Antique status from, a modern firearm. As you stated many collectors choose to look fore Pre. 1898 firearms, (Antique), for just those reasons that you stated above in you’re post! 
Anthony
It’s all about the hammer price. If you can sell as an antique, it’s going to bring more, and more revenue for the auction house.
Anthony said
TXGunNut said
This situation troubles me because I know that an overzealous member of the federal law enforcement community could turn a collector’s life upside down for doing something that we know happens on a daily basis. I also know that BATFE has not shown much interest in pursuing this type of violation but that doesn’t mean they won’t at some point. As we know a felony will likely end a gun collecting career and it’s not something I want to risk. I think the reason BATFE doesn’t concern themselves much with collectors is that we are generally a law-abiding bunch. I don’t want that to change and a pattern of sloppy transactions could certainly cause that to change.
Mike
Absolutely, and unfortunately, you’re correct, Mike!
Steve said,
Tony –
Many collectors focus mainly on antiques, so the status can make a big difference. For some, it is a big deal to be able to have a rifle shipped directly to them vs. having to go through a transfer dealer, fill out a form, pay the fee, etc. I feel that antique status adds value.
Steve, I was hoping that I explained my comment well enough, as I re read it, I see that it could be taken a couple different ways. I guess what I was trying to say was, I don’t understand why, some of the auction houses can’t get the information correct, and especially the dates, as far as the Winchesters are concerned, with the great informational source our Moderators have provided for us collectors, along with the many others seeking, the information, needed, to distinguish the Antique status from, a modern firearm. As you stated many collectors choose to look fore Pre. 1898 firearms, (Antique), for just those reasons that you stated above in you’re post!
Anthony
Tony – getting my head around this one – just what the auction house is purporting – has been perplexing. On the one hand they classify it is an antique, yet they also admit it is a post-1898 piece by putting the 1899 manufacture date in their description and even posting a copy of the Cody letter – providing the very proof that it is not an antique. It seems to me, what they are suggesting is the generalized Madis data, actually trumps the information in the factory ledger for this specific rifle! And hence, “… this rifle is legally an antique.” We can all have our opinions I suppose but I’ll have to disagree with them on this point. But, I’m not a lawyer and don’t even play one on TV.
steve004 said
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/4095/4/antique-special-order-winchester-model-1894-short-rifleInteresting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
Steve,
I chose to go back, and start over with you’re first and original post, and try to simplify my thoughts on this auction house, Blunder. Or was it a misjudgement? A planned misstep? Or maybe the auction house was moving so fast on putting things up for auction, and more than one person, got to working on this, and thought the other was doing it’s due diligence, on the listing, as far as the antique status, or not, is concerned! It does make me wonder who overseas these listing’s, as a proof reader, adding more overhead to the operation, but doing their very important job, in the meantime.
How about the buyer, who wins the bid? Can he expect the rifle shipped to his door as an antique? Which the Law clearly states it has to be Pre-1899! Not Made, or mfg. in 1899! Us collectors surly don’t need the hassle of the ATF, or an agent with a bad attitude getting a hold of this and making an example out of it!
In summary, It’s clearly not an antique as you’ve stated!
Anthony
Gentlemen:
The federal definition of “Antique” and the definition of the same word in the laws of some States [guess which?] can differ. However, for the most part, what you are discussing is called by the Bar the “antiquity defense.”
Although the most common criminal prosecutions in which the antiquity defense is raised are felon-in-possession cases brought in federal court, the elements of the defense are the same when raised in a case brought against an 01 or 03 licensee or an unlicensed individual buyer or seller, for violations of NFA, GCA 68 as amended, postal regulations, other relevant federal, State or local laws.
Here is a good exposition of the antiquity defense, which I commend to you. [I have no relationship with this firm or any of its attorneys, nor do I know anyone who does. I found this article on a Google search and read it.] Although it is written by attorneys, it is intended for prospective clients and readable. It contains information any collector who buys or sells antique arms should know:
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Thanks for the link to a good read, Zebulon.
The phrase that stuck out to me was, “the burden of establishing that a firearm is an antique falls on the defendant.” In other words, one is guilty until proven innocent!
About 20 years ago I purchased from an internet auction a Winchester 1894 that the Madis info claimed was built in 1897. The seller stated that it was an antique. The WACA info indicated the rifle was made in 1902. Thus that Winchester 1894 was (and is) a “modern firearm” under the provisions of federal law. When the seller said the rifle could be shipped directly to my door, I insisted instead that it go to my local FFL. The seller thought I was nuts, but I had him ship it to my FFL for my own protection. Had I knowingly received a modern firearm through the mail without going through the statutory requirements of going through a licensed FFL, I could have been liable to federal charges. Since I look horrible in orange (rather like the great pumpkin) and I did not wish to trade in my present home for an extended stay at “Club Fed,” it seems a very minor inconvenience to me to go through a licensed FFL. I certainly would not wish to use the Madis info as my legal defense, when the WACA data clearly shows otherwise, as that seems to me to be crawling way out on a branch to weak to hold.
BRP
Parson, the distinction may seem small but only to those who’ve never tried a criminal case. No, a defendant who raises the antique defense is not “guilty until proven innocent.” The prosecution must prove every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonoble doubt, which is the highest burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence. If the prosecution fails to prove only a single element [a fact of the several necessary to constitute the crime], the defendant must be acquitted.
However, the Congress, in drafting the federal criminal code, can and in this case did, denominate the antique defense as an affirmative defense, a fact in rebuttal, upon which the defendant carries the burden of proof, although only by a preponderance of the evidence [51% of the credible evidence, a much lower standard.]
The concept of affirmative defense in Anglo-American law rests on the principle that the prosecution should not be required to disprove a negative — the absence of a fact, particularly when the means and motive to prove the existence of the fact rests with the defendant.
Ignoring replicas, the antique defense requires the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the putative antique arm was made before 1/1/1899. As a practical matter that’s going to require expert testimony from somebody who qualifies and isn’t your brother-in-law. Which is spelled M.O.N.E.Y. on top of the lawyer’s bill.
Speaking only for myself [this post is not “The Lawyer’s Hour — Ask him any question and get Free Legal Advice!” Go see your own lawyer, I’m retired.], I am happy to pay fifty bucks every three years for my C&R/03 license that can solve most but not all of my worries, for example whether a gun was made in 1894 or 1902. A Winchester 1894, whether made in 1895 or [in a transaction today] 1975, if purchased by me here in Texas from an Internet dealer, could be shipped by UPS Ground to my front door without violating any federal or Texas law.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
For those of us that have been at this for awhile we can remember the huge uproar that was caused when David Kennady made the polishing room records widely known. It is true that it seems the BATFE is not to excited about this. I live in a litigious state and do not want to be the test case. Confusing advertising is a way of getting more sales. And like the law says, the buyer is held liable from the get go and the dealer might have some wiggle room.
Anthony said
steve004 said
Interesting word play here. As well as some false assumptions and interpretations (e.g. “Per the Madis serial number data published by Winchester, this rifle is legally an antique.”)
And then they move right on to provide the ledger information that clearly documents it is not an antique. Yet they clearly classify it as an antique – in the auction title, the description and the rifle status (e.g. antique or curio & relic).
Steve,
I chose to go back, and start over with you’re first and original post, and try to simplify my thoughts on this auction house, Blunder. Or was it a misjudgement? A planned misstep? Or maybe the auction house was moving so fast on putting things up for auction, and more than one person, got to working on this, and thought the other was doing it’s due diligence, on the listing, as far as the antique status, or not, is concerned! It does make me wonder who overseas these listing’s, as a proof reader, adding more overhead to the operation, but doing their very important job, in the meantime.
How about the buyer, who wins the bid? Can he expect the rifle shipped to his door as an antique? Which the Law clearly states it has to be Pre-1899! Not Made, or mfg. in 1899! Us collectors surly don’t need the hassle of the ATF, or an agent with a bad attitude getting a hold of this and making an example out of it!
In summary, It’s clearly not an antique as you’ve stated!
Anthony
Tony –
You raise some interesting points and scenarios. Some, I had not thought of. Sometimes there are alternative explanations, mistakes and so on. This is just one auction of many many hundred.
1 Guest(s)
