This past week, I was asked a question I had never seriously considered: why did Congress choose “in or before 1898” as the cutoff date for defining an antique firearm? As I reached out to colleagues across the country, I quickly realized I was not alone in having never asked, “Why?”
The answer lies in the Congressional Record of May 23, 1968. During the 1960s, Senator Thomas J. Dodd introduced several crime bills that, while not ultimately adopted, laid the groundwork for what became the Gun Control Act (GCA). The GCA pursued a range of objectives, including restricting sales to certain groups deemed high-risk by Congress, regulating interstate and mail-order sales, imposing stricter federal licensing requirements on manufacturers and dealers, and limiting the importation of certain firearms.
The GCA also required serial numbers on all firearms. To do so, Congress first needed to define what legally constituted a “firearm” – and, by extension, what did not. This led to the introduction of the term “antique firearm.” According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, that designation includes:
(a)Any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; and (b) any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (a) of this definition if such replica (1) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (2) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.
In practical terms, an antique firearm is any firearm – excluding machine guns, which remain regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 regardless of manufacture date—produced before January 1, 1899. As a result, these arms are not legally classified as firearms at the federal level. Certain replicas also fall within this category.
At first glance, the selection of 1898 might appear arbitrary. However, a closer reading of earlier Congressional debates reveals that the date was carefully considered. On May 23, 1968, Senator John G. Tower proposed an amendment to the definition of “antique,” which Congress had already been debating.
Earlier proposals had suggested 1870 as the cutoff. Tower explained that this earlier date had been recommended to Senator Dodd by “people in the trade,” whom he identified as modern handgun manufacturers. He argued that these individuals did not necessarily understand the types of firearms valued by collectors, historians, and museums. One of the primary goals of the antique designation, Tower emphasized, was to avoid overburdening law-abiding collectors, as well as historians and museums, in acquiring historically significant arms.
Tower offered several justifications for extending the date to 1898. First, he noted that gun collector organizations had identified this year as preferable in testimony before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, chaired by Dodd. He also cited existing precedent in the Code of Federal Regulations, which defined “obsolete small arms” in the context of importation under the U.S. Munitions List using the same 1898 benchmark.
He further grounded his argument in technological developments. According to Tower, 1898 predates U.S. manufacture of semi-automatic handguns. He referenced John Moses Browning’s 1897 patent, noting that widespread production did not begin until the early 20th century. Some semi-automatic firearms – such as Hugo Borchardt’s C93 –fall within the antique definition but were produced overseas.
Tower also addressed revolver design, stating that the “modern” revolver, which he defined as having a solid frame and swing-out cylinder, emerged shortly before 1898. While not entirely precise, this characterization reflects the growing popularity of such features during the 1890s. He further pointed to the transition from black powder to smokeless powder, which accelerated during that same decade.
Finally, Tower discussed fixed ammunition, also known as self-contained cartridges, arguing that while such ammunition existed before 1898, many calibers had become obsolete or commercially unavailable by 1968. This rationale is perhaps the most debatable, given that cartridges such as the .45 Colt remained widely used, particularly amid the popularity of reproduction firearms during that period.
Tower concluded by emphasizing that, although antique firearms could theoretically be used in crime – citing the well-known example of John Dillinger escaping jail with a wooden carving in the shape of a gun – they did not pose a meaningful threat. He then requested that Dodd accept the revised date, which Dodd did, effectively settling the matter.
Dodd’s original proposal of 1870 remains an intriguing point. Although his precise reasoning is unclear beyond Tower’s reference to earlier discussions, it raises important historical questions. One possible explanation relates to the development of fixed ammunition. While Smith & Wesson patented a self-contained cartridge in the 1850s, and similar designs followed before 1870, that date predates the widespread adoption of iconic firearms such as the Colt Single Action Army (introduced in 1873), commonly associated with the .45 Colt cartridge. On the other hand, Winchester Repeating Arms Company’s Model 1866, which also used fixed ammunition, problematizes this rationale.
Perhaps more puzzling is the origin of Dodd’s initial date. If it did indeed come from firearm manufacturers, as Tower suggested, why was 1870 selected? Was it, as Tower implied, due to a limited familiarity with historical arms? Or did it reflect broader industry concerns – such as competition from inexpensive imports, including surplus military firearms and possibly even increasingly popular reproduction Western-style arms manufactured overseas? This question is further complicated by Dodd’s own controversies, including allegations that he accepted funds from firearm manufacturers despite his public support for gun control. He was also censured by Congress for commingling personal and campaign funds. Nevertheless, the peculiar reasoning behind the 1870 proposal warrants further investigation.
Ultimately, the year 1898 was adopted. It passed the Senate in May, the House in June – one day after the assassination of Robert Kennedy – and was signed into law in October 1968. Today, the United States is not unique in distinguishing between antique and modern firearms. Many countries recognize similar classifications, often using dates close to 1898.
A special thank you to Second Amendment scholar David Hardy for pointing me in the right direction and guiding me to the Congressional Record, which can be found here.