The ATF has long recognized that certain firearms fall into a category known as “curios and relics.” As defined, this includes weapons that “are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons.” Most are firearms over 50 years old, or for which the value is historical rather than functional.
Collectors of curios and relics (C&R) can acquire a Type 3 FFL, which allows them to bypass some of the transfer requirements of the Gun Control Act and Brady Act. To the best of my knowledge (and please prove me wrong), Borchardt pistols and Clement carbines are hardly the preferred weapons of gang violence and mass shootings.
But folks in Washington state decided to do things their own way. Whether through haste or design, I-594 now makes it pointless to hold a C&R license there.
The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
Type 3’s aren’t dealers, so they can’t conduct background checks. As such, they’ll need to have all transfers done through a Type 1 or 2 dealer. That pretty much invalidates the very point of a C&R license.
What about the federal rules exempting C&R weapons? There’s no equivalent in I-594. The only exception for the background-check requirement is for guns defined as antiques, which are:
(…) a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
That’s, well…that’s pretty much everything. There might be merit to a lawsuit challenging this conflict between federal and state law.
(Sorry, Crufflers: I hadn’t considered this wrinkle before. I went back and checked last year’s federal background-check bill. Its definitions would have presented the exact same problem.)
6 thoughts on “I-594: Curios and Relics”
Unfortunately there isn’t really a conflict between state and federal law in this case. 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(2) makes it illegal under federal law to deliver “any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law …” So we are screwed.
Type 3 FFLs are not “unlicensed persons.” They are not “dealers” but they still hold a Federal Firearms License. The USPS makes the same distinction in the regulations for mailing concealable firearms: a “dealer” can, a non-dealer FFL can’t.
A Type 3 can still buy from or sell to another Type 3 in Washington, and buy from anyone inside or outside of Washington.
The only thing that will change is that a Type 3 can no longer sell a firearm (C&R or not) to a non-FFL (of whatever type) in Washington.
Even between Type 3’s, the law requires the intercession of a licensed dealer. There’s no exemption that I can see:
I am still confused. Can a Washington State holder of a C&R license buy a C&R weapon from an out-of-state seller?
Not if the any part of the transfer occurs in the state of Washington, meaning they can’t ship it to you directly, but rather must go through a licensed dealer in Washington. However, as I read it, I can take my C&R FFL out of state, buy a C&R eligible handgun from a dealer in another state, and bring it back into Washington since the actual transfer took place out of state. In that case, no part of the transfer occurred in Washington so the law would not apply. I’m not sure how that would work with regard to buying from type 3 license holders or unlicensed individuals, that would depend on the laws of the state in which the transfer occurs. I wrote the Washington Attorney General for guidance on this and was told that the law was too complex for them to provide an interpretation and that I should hire a lawyer. Very helpful.
That was the official response from the Department of Licensing as well.