[Eightball]

Just a thought--if you're in a non-gun friendly state that only has laws against carrying a "firearm" on your person, would you carry a Black-Powder something-or-other, since technically they aren't "firearms"?

EDIT: Yes, this is modern day. No, it's not an issue for me--just a thought.

[Heavy Metal Hero]

I would carry one in my sash!

Yaaaarrrggggg! Avast ye!

[MikeJackmin]

I might, if it were legal; however, impression is that most states which prohibit CCW will nail you for BP as well. I may be wrong, but I'd want a written statement from the local DA before I risked it myself.

From a practical standpoint, BP guns can be left loaded for as long as you like, so long as they stay dry and the caps remain firmly in place. I'd still want to test, clean and reload on a fairly regular basis, just to be sure.

[fattsgalore]

I'm pretty sure BlackPowder guns are still classified as a firearm since they shoot bullets propelled by a combustible chemical.

Think about it.

[wcwhitey]

My understanding is that a Black Powder gun becomes a firearm again once it is loaded with all it's components. States differ as to the language. JMHO

[RNB65]

since technically they aren't "firearms"

They are in VA. VA law makes no distinction between BP and non-BP firearms in regards to concealed carry.

[MikeJackmin]

Here's what I'd pack:

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/images/Products/284L.jpg

I'd probably take off the loading lever; why lug it around?
They make it in stainless, too, but the blue looks so much better.

http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/FAProdView?model=1411&return=Y

[Car Knocker]

I bet the state would, for this purpose, define a black powder pistol as either a firearm, a dangerous weapon or a prohibited weapon.

[tinygnat219]

Eightball,
Check your local ordnances and see if they don't include BlackPowder. I bet they do.

Why would you want to carry a Blackpowder pistol? Smokeless has proven to be SO much more deadly than ANY BP pistol. BP also has a tendency to not work real well when constantly exposed to dampness, or water.

[rbernie]

Why would you want to carry a Blackpowder pistol? Smokeless has proven to be SO much more deadly than ANY BP pistol. BP also has a tendency to not work real well when constantly exposed to dampness, or water.The premise was that a BP pistol would be legal in situations in which a modern (smokeless) sidearm would be not. The consensus seems to be that the premise is faulty, i.e. a BP pistol will be considered a firearm just as much as a modern pistol.

In Texas, that's sorta true. Here's the relevant TX Penal Code, Section 46.01:

"Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include antique or curio firearms that were manufactured prior to 1899 and that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter.
So a modern BP would still be considered a firearm and would be subject to all firearms related law. A pre-1899 weapon of any kind would not, and could conceivably be carried by those not otherwise authorized to possess or carry a 'firearm'.

Of course, IANAL and this is not legal advice, anyone soliciting legal advice on the Internet is a fool, etc. etc.

[earplug]

Only on my Sloop with the M2 HB fifty.

[Autolycus]

No because in Illinois I most assuredly would be arrested.

[SeanSw]

If a blackpowder fiearm actually fit through the loophole, yes I would.

[MCgunner]

BP takes some getting used to and in Texas it quite definitely IS a firearm and considered as such, so there's no loop hole. Heck, they got laws for knives and such, no switch blades or any knife with over a 4" blade, etc.

But, when it was illegal to carry anything here, I carried a .25 in deep concealment. Yeah, I know this is The High Road and I was breaking the law, in no way advocate disobedience to the law, but I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six and that little 25 scared off a bum with a knife once, so I'm glad I had it.

I have a nice little semi accurate, well made and reliable Remington pocket .31 CVA replica, Italian made, of course. It ain't much for power, about that of .22 LR, but it's a lot more concealable than that Ruger. I have an early production Old Army and it has the accuracy and power of a modern firearm, actually can embarrass a lot of modern firearms, especially semi autos. But, the danged thing is HUGE and HEAVY. It's a belt rig open carry gun. No way I'm going to conceal it especially on 100 degree days. That little pocket .31 is about the size of a J frame, has a 4" barrel. It'd ride IWB rather easily and it's light. I think if I was forced into concealing a BP for one weird reason or other, I'd look at getting a replica .36 sheriff's model of some kind. At the most, I'd go with a Remington and maybe cut down the barrel somehow, get a spare cylinder or two for it for quick reloads Clint Eastwood style.

Fortunately, I ain't forced to carry BP. :D

So a modern BP would still be considered a firearm and would be subject to all firearms related law. A pre-1899 weapon of any kind would not, and could conceivably be carried by those not otherwise authorized to possess or carry a 'firearm'.

What if the gun is a replica made in 2007? Anyway, I don't think you should try strappin' on you '51 navy and walking into the sheriff's office in your home town. I think you could spend a lot of time in jail and a lot of money defending yourself even if you do eventually get found innocent or have charges dropped. I need to check the penal code, too, because I think the clause you quoted may have more to do with definitions of legal firearms than of legal to carry weapons. IOW, it might be out of context, because I do not believe unlicensed carry of BP guns is legal at all regardless of date of manufacture or design.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Didn't Wild Bill reload and test his guns every morning??