How Sharp is Your Eye?

I found an error in Pennsylvania’s Consolidated Statues online. Let’s see if you guys can spot it:

§ 6118. Antique firearms

It would be fun if it wasn’t wrong.

11 Responses to “How Sharp is Your Eye?”

  1. Bitter says:

    Just to taunt, I’ll say that I found it. :)

  2. Bullbore says:

    Interesting….do you think the feds would adopt that for C & R???

  3. Sebastian says:

    I wouldn’t complain :)

  4. AMCer says:

    Nice! I want to make a comment but it will give it away… :(

  5. Ace says:




    I found it.

  6. Wai says:

    Let’s see…replicas and reproductions wouldn’t be genuine antiques. And this law was initially enacted in 1975, so I don’t know how a firearm manufactured in 1988 (13 years in the future) would be considered an antique. And I think the entire sections following: “(a) General rule.–This subchapter shall not apply to antique firearms.” actually contradicts it. Am I warm or am I way off base?

    And finally, “Pennsylvania Consolidated Statues.” Statues??

    OHhhhHh…my head hurts….

  7. Ahab says:

    That would be nice if they enacted that for C&R guns.

    1988 my arse.

  8. Spence says:

    I just pulled it up in Westlaw…

    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6118


    (c) Definition.–As used in this section, the term “antique firearm” means:

    (1) Any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock or percussion cap type of ignition system.
    (2) Any firearm manufactured on or before 1898.
    (3) Any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (2) if such replica:
    (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional center fire fixed ammunition; or
    (ii) uses rimfire or conventional center fire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

  9. Sebastian says:

    Yeah… definitely a mistake. The ATF’s publication on all the state and local gun laws that they send to FFLs says the same thing.

  10. Michael says:

    Don’t you just love government type-O’s. The sad thing is the BATFE get their panties in a wad if we civies suffer from the same fault.

  11. straightarrow says:

    Do you think possibly this was a “willful” violation? Perhaps we should put them out of business.