Black Powder for Self Defense


PDA






EricTheBarbarian
March 13, 2007, 02:39 AM
I am curious, does anyone on here use a black powder handgun or rifle for self defense? Or even better yet, for a concealed carry firearm. I know its probably not very common but there has to be someone out there. Also, what are the pros and cons of doing this rather than the obvious of not being able to reload as fast. this should be interesting

If you enjoyed reading about "Black Powder for Self Defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mike101
March 13, 2007, 03:38 AM
In the past, I used a Ruger Old Army for home defense. Why not? Your probably not going to need to reload in a home defense situation. For consealed carry, something like a 1863 Remington Pocket Pistol would fit into a coat pocket.

If you want a percussion revolver, but feel "funny" about using one for defense, there are cartridge cylinders available for them from Kirst Konverters, and R&D. These are interchangable with the percussion cylinder. There are no federal regs regarding these cylinders, either, so you can buy them over the internet. See www.taylorsfirearms.com, www.midwayusa.com, and for the Kirst cylinders, www.riverjunction.com.

Lots of dead bad guys from the 19th century can attest to the effectiveness of BP weapons as defense guns.

I just noticed your signature. Have you been to The Huffington Post, too?

mmike87
March 13, 2007, 12:08 PM
I wouldn't necessarily discount the necessity to reload in a home defense situation.

Ed Gallop
March 13, 2007, 01:22 PM
Can't imagine why anyone would. If it comes to self defense, I want to be assured not only that the gun will fire, but that it will have the effect needed. I have a 9mm and a 357 for that purpose. The 9mm holds 15 bullets. I doubt you would fire over one shot, maybe two if the intruder was armed, not retreating, and you missed the target on first shot. I guess a black powder would be okay if you don't have a modern firearm. I wouldn't want to keep mine loaded though. It isn't good for the gun. Might be okay with smokeless powder but that can be mor dangerous for you than for the intruder. Ed.

mike101
March 13, 2007, 02:06 PM
Actually, you can leave them loaded, as long as it's dry, especially with something like 777. It's non corosive. It's really only black powder fouling that will wreck your gun, if you don't clean it well.

That's why the conversion cylinders are nice, especially in something like a stainless steel Ruger Old Army. .45 Colt should do nicely as a defense gun.

timothy75
March 13, 2007, 02:22 PM
They could get you in trouble in court I hear. Expecially if you have a safe full of glocks they could accuse you of playing cowboy. If you dont any other firearms then yes by all means. I frequently take to the feild with one and feel very well armed. I could see keeping one for home defense if say your other guns were a 22 deringer, scoped 30-06, o/u red label, or a scoped 454casull, in which case I would prefer an 1860 army any day. I supose it could also be justified if you kept various guns throughout the house in strategic locations. Like say your garage gun.

armoredman
March 13, 2007, 03:54 PM
A good 1858 with spare loaded cylinders, good setup. 44 BP can seriously mess up a felon's day.:evil:

Tbu61
March 13, 2007, 04:22 PM
As posted above... BP will get the job done very effectively. Just look at the casualty rates in the early American Wars, (discounting death from infection).

The argument about keeping a gun loaded with Black powder and corrosion concerns... Keep it cool and dry and it has a tremendous shelf life, no consequence to the gun. Afterall, they sell BP in a metal can right?

If it's all you have available, it certainly beats having to use a frying pan or knitting needle to defend yourself.

My Lyman 58 puts out a ball so quick, I cant see it leave the barrel..... getting hit by that???? Ouch!

robert garner
March 13, 2007, 04:53 PM
would be increased by familiarity.
Once you've developed load techniques, and are able to use it effectively ,why not?
When i was MUCH younger and my Ruger was my only effective pistol I had no qualms, with wife and kids in the equation , no, I have others to draw upon.
So while not my first choice, I would trust MY life with one.
robert

Plink
March 13, 2007, 05:32 PM
I'd be more worried about the first shot filling the room with smoke and making subsequent shots impossible. I guess the smoke screen works both ways though.

pcosmar
March 13, 2007, 08:09 PM
Several years ago, While I was on parole I kept one for home defense. I owned 3 with my parole officers knowledge. He had to approve the possession of the powder.
I am currently working toward a restoration of my rights. An uphill battle I may never win, but there is always hope.

Bezoar
March 14, 2007, 12:18 AM
Black powder guns will kill intruders and keep you alive. Last decade a couple in west michigan saved themselves with an old bp revolver. And a few homocides as well here in michigan prove that a bp revolver is an excellent weapon.
If bp was soooo unrealiable, you wouldnt have people loading it into bp cartridges months ahead of competitions..

Imaginos
March 14, 2007, 09:03 AM
Since Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the benevolent government of South Africa have decided that White people should not have modern firearms for defense, many of them are going back to cap-n-ball revolvers. They are reporting good results.

IIRC, some of those folks have posted on THR in the past.

AntiqueCollector
March 14, 2007, 09:19 AM
I personally like cap and ball revolvers (1851 Colt Navy being the best! Has the best feel in my hand of any handgun I've held...) better than modern handguns. I know there are disadvantages to using one for self-defense (mainly the slow reloading), but, 6 shots from one will more than likely take out any bad guy, and a spare loaded cylinder is a nice accessory...

tinygnat219
March 14, 2007, 09:44 AM
Ummm,

Why? This has to be one of the wierder options for Self-Defense. Personally, I wouldn't trust it. BP is great for hunting, Cowboy Action, or any other recreational shooting game. Self-Defense when Smokeless is available? No way. If you are talking about Home Defense, use smokeless. Definitely stay away from Cap and Ball, it's an older technology that's nowhere near as reliable or as effective as today's watertight cartridges.

If you are in a confined space, like say your bedroom, any BP smoke will obscure your vision, and make a chaotic situation worse. The flames coming from the barrel will show your position. Then there's the ever fun aspect of reloading. Cap and Ball? Forget it.

RonSC
March 14, 2007, 10:30 AM
Many Interstate truckers routinely carry BP pistols since they are considered non-firearms and exempt from "normal" carry laws and reciprocity agreements between states.

Ron

AntiqueCollector
March 14, 2007, 11:00 AM
A good cap and ball revolver is very reliable if properly used. And, the smoke is not really such a problem if it's used as a carry gun mainly outdoors.

pohill
March 14, 2007, 11:20 AM
Keep in mind, once you conceal a BP revolver, everything changes as far as the law - it's now a concealed weapon. Just because you can own one doesn't mean you can carry it concealed.

AntiqueCollector
March 14, 2007, 11:22 AM
Depends on your state. I don't need a permit for any concealed gun here.

mike101
March 14, 2007, 11:43 AM
How about a Colt 2nd Generation '51 Navy with a Kirst or R&D .38 Colt conversion cylinder. The coolness of a '51 Navy, and reliability to boot.
:)

NewShooter
March 14, 2007, 01:03 PM
My biggest fear would be that the spent cap would fall down and jam up the action. Then theres also the smoke situation that was mentioned.

BigBlock
March 14, 2007, 04:43 PM
Keep in mind, once you conceal a BP revolver, everything changes as far as the law - it's now a concealed weapon. Just because you can own one doesn't mean you can carry it concealed.

Not in Oregon it doesn't. Our laws specifically exempt antiques and replicas from nearly everything. They aren't considered firearms or handguns. I would be willing to bet a lot of other states are the same way, minus the communists on the east coast....


As far as reliability is concerned, most of the time you don't have to shoot your gun at all. Point a big shiny 8" barrel 1858 Remington at somebody and they are going to do what you tell them.

pohill
March 14, 2007, 04:54 PM
I would be willing to bet a lot of other states are the same way, minus the communists on the east coast....


Well, I live in MA and replicas and antiques are exempt from gun laws until you conceal them. I just hope everyone knows their guns laws before they carry a BP revolver concealed. You can bet all you want, but that's one bet I'd hate to lose on your say so...

tinygnat219
March 14, 2007, 05:12 PM
For all those out there that have Cap and Ball Revolvers thinking they are exempt from Conceal and Carry or Firearms laws. Just use it sometime while defending yourself and I can practically guarantee that you will be arrested for using a firearm. If not, any halfway decent DA will find a way to use it against you. Be careful and know your laws.

BigBlock
March 14, 2007, 05:38 PM
For all those out there that have Cap and Ball Revolvers thinking they are exempt from Conceal and Carry or Firearms laws. Just use it sometime while defending yourself and I can practically guarantee that you will be arrested for using a firearm. If not, any halfway decent DA will find a way to use it against you. Be careful and know your laws.

Uhhh...no. If you use any weapon for defense you are not going to be arrested so long as you didn't do anything stupid. People don't get arrested for "using a firearm". It doesn't matter whether it's a glock or a rock. If you did do something stupid and shoot someone you shouldn't have, again, it matters not if you used a rock or a glock. The reason you might go to jail has nothing to do with the gun you used, only why you used it.

pohill
March 14, 2007, 05:59 PM
Check out these Oregon gun laws:
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

Scroll down to 166.460: Antique firearms excepted. This is where it gets confusing. Some people, even in Oregon, cannot own antique firearms. And, nowhere does it talk about carrying an antique or replica firearm concealed. If I missed it, let me know.
That is where you have to be careful. Owning and concealing are not the same. Maybe they are in Oregon but I'd make damn sure before I carried any handgun concealed without a permit.

BigBlock
March 14, 2007, 07:58 PM
Oregon law says: (irrelivant parts deleted)

166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:

(a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;

(b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle; or

(c) Possesses a firearm and:


(C) Has been convicted of a felony or found guilty, except for insanity under ORS 161.295, of a felony;


(2) This section does not prohibit:

(B) Temporarily for hunting, target practice or any other lawful purpose; or

(3) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.

(4) Unlawful possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. [Amended by 1979 c.779 §4; 1985 c.543 §3; 1989 c.839 §13; 1993 c.732 §1; 1993 c.735 §12; 1999 c.1040 §1; 2001 c.666 §§33,45; 2003 c.614 §8]


And then it says:

166.460 Antique firearms excepted. (1) ORS 166.250, 166.260, 166.291 to 166.295, 166.410, 166.412, 166.425, 166.434, 166.438 and 166.450 do not apply to antique firearms.

It also says under 166.210 Definitions:

(4) “Handgun” means any pistol or revolver using a fixed cartridge containing a propellant charge, primer and projectile, and designed to be aimed or fired otherwise than from the shoulder.

So a muzzleloading revolver isn't even a handgun.

pohill
March 14, 2007, 08:05 PM
But you cannot ignore this part:

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, possession of an antique firearm by a person described in ORS 166.250 (1)(c)(B), (C) or (D) constitutes a violation of ORS 166.250. [Amended by 1979 c.779 §6; 1989 c.839 §25; 1993 c.735 §8; 1995 c.729 §9; 2001 c.1 §11; 2001 c.666 §§35,47; 2003 c.614 §10]

We're all on the same side here - my point is that it would be a real shame if someone got busted for carrying a loaded replica or antique gun concealed and ended up doing some time.

BigBlock
March 14, 2007, 08:13 PM
Yeah, I saw that part, it doesn't include concealed weapons. In plain talk, OR law says "The concealed weapons ban does not include antique firearms".

The problem is when you come across an overpaid and underworked local cop, I doubt they will have the slightest clue what an antique revolver looks like compared to a new one. You might go to jail but you won't do any time.

pohill
March 14, 2007, 08:31 PM
What bugs me about these laws is the fact that they really don't talk about concealment (in regards to antiques and replicas) - mostly they talk about ownership. And I'll tell ya, when I was a cop, I always covered my arse in doubtful situations - if I had caught somone with a loaded, concealed BP revolver with no license to carry, I would have made the arrest and let the courts make the judgement, which would have meant some major inconvenience for the arrestee in time and money.

There's so much confusion in Ma about these laws, that when I called the State Police to find some answers, they directed me to a chief of police in a small town who has taken it upon himself to interpret these foolish laws. It's not the cops you have to worry about, but the local DAs looking to make a name for themselves.

oneshooter
March 14, 2007, 08:54 PM
As a personnel note, I would not care to be shot with ANY BP pistol, rifle, or shotgun!!:D

Oneshooter
livin in Texas

happybrew
March 15, 2007, 02:19 AM
Oregon law specifically exempts BP firearms from the concealed carry permit requirements, however, it allows local governments to regulate carry of loadedfirearms. Where I live, state law allows it, but municipal law does not. I could carry an unloaded BP firearm where I live, but as soon as I load it without a concealed carry permit, I have violated the municipal criminal code, regardless of the reason I load that puppy. This includes open carry, and Oregon is an open carry state. The state law is permissive, but written in such a way that local law carries the day.

As Pohill says, your local cop will probably make the arrest and have the courts sort it out. Local police officer has a family to feed, and wants to make sure his boss is happy with him. He will not let you go if there is a doubt.

When I went on jury duty, local prosecutor was a young guy who was very nervous about a simple DUI arrest. To get past bottom rung prosecuting attorney, you will need an attorney of your own. He does not have the power to act on his own. This will cost you dollars. Probably more than it would cost you to pay the fees and take the class for a "shall issue" Oregon permit. Which reminds me, I need to cut down my brass framed BP pistol to concealable length and apply for a permit. I will keep the steel framed BP pistol I recently purchased for home defense, and practice with that. I like my BP pistol, and I am confident it will be reliable if I do my part.

My Pietta likes #11 caps pinched to fit right, not the #10 caps which fit just fine, but don't go off reliably. If I reload once a month, I'll be fine. I've tested this over the past nine months since I've purchased the brass 1851 Colt Pietta replica. That is what I've determined is best for that gun.

God Bless, and good shooting.

happybrew

mkonops
March 19, 2007, 02:31 PM
For all those out there that have Cap and Ball Revolvers thinking they are exempt from Conceal and Carry or Firearms laws. Just use it sometime while defending yourself and I can practically guarantee that you will be arrested for using a firearm. If not, any halfway decent DA will find a way to use it against you. Be careful and know your laws.
Uhhh...no. If you use any weapon for defense you are not going to be arrested so long as you didn't do anything stupid. People don't get arrested for "using a firearm". It doesn't matter whether it's a glock or a rock. If you did do something stupid and shoot someone you shouldn't have, again, it matters not if you used a rock or a glock. The reason you might go to jail has nothing to do with the gun you used, only why you used it.

I would not live by that philosophy if I were you. If you carry and subsequently fire a concealed weapon in public, you better be damn sure that weapon is legal. If you "use a firearm" that is not legal, you can bet you WILL be arrested, and if you don't - your local law enforcement needs a housecleaning. Just because you are defending yourself does not exempt you from the same CCW laws that regulate the rest of us. There is a huge difference between a glock and a rock, and I think a jury will easily recognize that difference.

MinScout
March 19, 2007, 03:11 PM
I don't think a bg would want to stare down one of these.

Cosmoline
March 19, 2007, 03:32 PM
they could accuse you of playing cowboy.

What do you mean? There is no "cowboy" exception to self defense.

BigBlock
March 19, 2007, 03:54 PM
If you "use a firearm" that is not legal, you can bet you WILL be arrested, and if you don't - your local law enforcement needs a housecleaning.

Nobody is talking about using any weapon that is illegal. As I pointed out earlier, black powder guns are neither handgun nor firearm in this state, as well as many others. It is every bit as legal to carry one without a permit as it is to carry a regular gun with a permit. Also, from a simple self defense point of view, as this thread is about, there is no situation where you would be in more trouble for using a muzzleloader than for using a modern gun.

There is a huge difference between a glock and a rock, and I think a jury will easily recognize that difference.

Not really. If you assault someone who wasn't threatening you, you're going to jail whether you used a rock or a gun. If you kill a bad guy with a gun, you are in no more trouble than if you killed the same bad guy with a big rock.

pohill
March 19, 2007, 04:08 PM
Courts, judges, juries, etc are unpredictable.

Rock= dangerous weapon. Glock = deadly weapon.
Throwing a rock at someone is different than throwing a .9mm slug.
Kicking someone with a bare foot is different than kicking someone while wearing a shoe (shod foot).

Before I carried anything loaded AND concealed (other than my Adult Diaper), without a concealed carry permit, regardless of where you live and how you interpret the laws, I'd spend the time and make a call and see if it is completely legal, in all circumstances.
Would I ask an attorney? No. Local cop? Maybe a sergeant.

pcosmar
March 19, 2007, 07:38 PM
pohill
"Would I ask an attorney? No. Local cop? Maybe a sergeant."
Wrong answer, but a good way to get a wrong answer.
Most cops DO NOT know the law, they enforce it.
Find a RKBA lawyer. Most lawyers are anti. Find one who 2nd amendment friendly.
Also check with the State Attorney General, for the law in your state.

pohill
March 19, 2007, 08:29 PM
You ask a lawyer, I'll ask a cop, one with some rank, which means experience. Whatever floats your boat. Nothing against lawyers, but I do not know one that is gunlaw savvy.
How do you enforce the law if you do not know the law? The cops, that I know, know the laws they enforce.
Yeah, I'll go with the cop over the lawyer, just about any day. And when I need a lawyer, I'll ask cops who they suggest.

This is turning into a cop bashing, lawyer bashing, court bashing, etc which is not what I wanted to get into. All I am saying is that you should find out exactly...exactly...what your local guns laws are before you get into some deep doodoo. Ask a cop, a lawyer, a doctor, a criminal, a teacher...ask until you get the answer you feel comfortable with. Do your research. Just don't assume that an antique or replica is legal to carry loaded, concealed, without a permit. Maybe it is, maybe not. If you want to carry it without knowing the law, go ahead. We're all big boys here.

Old Dragoon
March 19, 2007, 08:40 PM
That's a great line Pohill. Ask a Cop to refer a Lawyer.

BigBlock
March 19, 2007, 09:02 PM
I'll ask a cop, one with some rank, which means experience.

Didn't you just say above, when you were a cop, you'd just take someone to jail if you didn't understand the law and let the judge deal with it?

AntiqueCollector
March 19, 2007, 09:16 PM
Your state's attorney general would probably give you an answer on the question. That, and actually reading your state's actual laws, would be the best thing to do. Anyone, lawyer, cop, attorney general, can make a mistake, intentionally or not, given how complex some states' gun laws have become. The laws themselves say what they say.

pohill
March 19, 2007, 09:43 PM
Didn't you just say above, when you were a cop, you'd just take someone to jail if you didn't understand the law and let the judge deal with it?

See what this is turning into? Pick apart every statement, hold it up to the light...
I said, "I always covered my arse in doubtful situations." Meaning, if I was not sure, I would cover my arse, within the limits of the law and probable cause and all that, and let the courts make the judgement, which is what courts do. If I ever suspected someone of drunk driving (for example), that person was going to the station, in the back of the cruiser, in cuffs. That person was not going to drive away. If they passed the BT, or if the courts found them not guilty, great - I covered my arse, legally. If I had caught someone with a loaded, concealed, BP revolver, without a permit, that person, most likely, depending on all of the circumstances, would have been arrested, and I would have been covered, legally, in making that arrest. And it would have been the right thing to do, as opposed to letting that person walk away with that loaded revolver without a permit. That is common sense, to a cop's way of thinking, or at least to mine.
Which brings me back to my point - carry concealed if you want to, without a permit, if you feel it is the right thing to do. Just don't get pissed at the cop who does what he feels is the right thing to do when you get arrested. Maybe you will be found "not guilty" in court, maybe not - but it will cost you in time and money.

arcticap
March 19, 2007, 11:37 PM
Carrying a loaded BP revolver or a pre-1898 antique pistol here without a CCP will result in a charge of reckless endangerment and the gun will be confiscated. This is despite a state law that exempts pre-1898 pistols from the CCP requirement. Apparently, carrying a loaded one isn't clearly specified, even though the law clearly states that "carrying one" is exempt. Since the charge is reckless endangerment and not possession, it's a loophole in the exemption. :uhoh:
Also, when a convicted felon consulted with a very reputable CT 2A lawyer about whether he could legally hunt with a muzzle loader, he was told that it was a grey area in our state law and that if he was ever arrested for it, he could end up spending a fortune fighting the charges. He said that it would be left up to the opinion of the trial judge to decide whether a BP gun was considered a firearm under state law or not. And one can just imagine which side that law enforcement, the prosecutors (and many state supreme courts) would take on the issue.

rifle
March 20, 2007, 02:41 AM
a loaded and concealed "weapon" whether it be modern or replica is concealed. concealed is concealed is concealed. once it's loaded and concealed it needs a permit. once it's loaded and concealed it becomes the laws baby. loaded and concealed becomes a different animal and needs a permit. the law won't see "antique" or "replica" they(whoever they may be--cop,judge,juror, prosecutor---will see "loaded and concealed gun". once loaded and concealed and especially if used to harm even in defense, it becomes a deadly weapon. a deadly weapon concealed is against the law. a cap and ball revolver is a deadly weapon. you know how the law looks at the use of deadly weapons. maybe it(cap and ball) would be "considered" under other laws besides gun laws then uh? use of lethal force? a pocket knife in this state is considered a concealed weapon if the blade is over 3 inches. it's a pocket knife until it's blade is over 3 inches and it's put in the pocket. then it's a concealed weapon. i think it's kinda the same with a cap and baller. it's a replica until it's loaded and concealed then it becomes a concealed deadly weapon. a simple razor box knife can become a concealed weapon once it's in the pocket concealed. right? once a permit to carry a firearm is obtained the carry of the cap and ball revolver is legal. i think a person would have to look at the definition of "firearm" to see if a cap and baller fits into the "permit to carry" law. fixed cartridges? a cap and ball cylinder may be considered one big fixed cartridge. hee hee


'












'

BigBlock
March 20, 2007, 03:24 AM
once it's loaded and concealed it needs a permit. once it's loaded and concealed it becomes the laws baby. loaded and concealed becomes a different animal and needs a permit. the law won't see "antique" or "replica" they(whoever they may be--cop,judge,juror, prosecutor---will see "loaded and concealed gun".

Once again, it depends on the state. As I've pointed out several times already, they are perfectly legal to conceal in my state. Many other states have the exact same laws. Some don't. The law does "see antique" because in every state the definition of an antique gun is well defined. The only thing you have to worry about are cops who don't know the law. Judges are not that stupid, all they would have to do is read the statutes and you'd be free to go.

mike101
March 20, 2007, 05:04 AM
Welcome to NJ. You need the same Permit To Purchase for a BP pistol that you need for a .44 Magnum. You would need a carry permit to carry one, which is impossible to get, unless you are a friend of His Excellancy, the Governor. This also applies to airguns.

It's kind of funny (if you don't happen to live here). The only weapon you can legally carry for protection is a gun. You just can't get the permit to do so. We can't even carry pepper spray in this state, so we have to drive over to Philly to get it. Ownership of a slingshot is not only illegal here, it's a felony. We are also not allowed to have;
knives with > 3" blades
double edged knives
throwing stars
billies
nunchucks
blackjacks
mace
crossbows
stun guns
I won't even go into our ridiculous gun laws.

Our politicians like their people defenseless. The only way you will get any rights from them, is if you actually commit crimes. Aren't you glad you don't live here? :barf:

pohill
March 20, 2007, 05:54 AM
The only thing you have to worry about are cops who don't know the law. Judges are not that stupid, all they would have to do is read the statutes and you'd be free to go.

That's a good one. Obviously you haven't dealt with judges that often. They have incredible power. Any cop or lawyer will tell you stories of judges who abused that power, had a bad day golfing and took it out on the cops or the defendants or the District Attorney, whatever or whomever...
Then there's juries...does OJ ring a bell?
Cops (or lawyers and judges) cannot in any way be expected to know every law covering every topic. It's impossible. You say that the judge will read the statutes and let you go - the cop on the street doesn't have that luxury right there, on the street.
As a citizen, you have choices and decisions to make. Speed signs, for example. A posted sign says 30 MPH. The next sign says 20mph When Children Are Present (school zone). So, when school is out, on a weekend, you see 2 kids walking down the street...is the speed limit 30 or 20? Technically, it's 20 mph. Or is it? And if it's raining or snowing, and no kids are present, is the speed limit 30? It depends on the conditions...it might only be safe to drive 10 mph that day. My point is that laws are fluid and open to all kinds of interpretations.
As a citizen, I'd say you have to worry about the cop that doesn't cover his arse in the BP concealed revolver example and just lets the guy go without checking into the laws.

rifle
March 20, 2007, 10:47 AM
BigBlocks, if gun laws say it's ok to carry loaded antiques guns then will another law governing the same antique being loaded and concealed take precedent if the judge decides to follow another type law? instead of "gun" use "lethal weapons" or some kind of "concealed weapons" law that includes anything that can be considered a weapon? Personally i feel it's an infringment on my God given inallieable right to self protection to be governed by so many conflicting,vague,laws made by every freakin yawhooo that gets some position of power to make law. i don't believe a person should have to be 'permitted' to carry a weapon for self defense. i think most of the laws should be taken off the books. too many of them and too many that conflict each other. the only law there should be is one that says "when confronted by law enforcement" a person should have to inform that they are carrying. i think it's a God given right to carry a defensive weapon. there would be a lot less raped women or injured people if our right to self defense was not twarted by so many laws. i believe that all the powers to be continuiously making so many laws will eventually lead to the masses ignoring the laws. like too many laws will end up causing chaos in society.

pohill
March 20, 2007, 11:00 AM
Every study, every statistic, says that when honest people own and carry firearms, crime goes down. Take the guns away, crime goes up. It drive me nuts to see 16 1/2 yr olds driving a 3,000 lb car talking on a cell phone when there are guns out there that I can never own due to these friggin' laws. You can buy a car without a license but you can't buy a gun, and driving is a privilege, not a God-given right, as is self defense.
My only point in all this is, don't end up in jail, even for an hour, for interpreting a gun law the wrong way.

arcticap
March 20, 2007, 11:43 AM
"Constitution of the State of Connecticut

Article First
Declaration of Rights
That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established,

SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."


What isn't clear?

Ed Gallop
March 20, 2007, 12:28 PM
I am a retired police officer and know the laws of Virginia and Alaska quite well. Never studied any other State's laws, but would bet you'll find a black powder as much a firearm as a smokeless firearm no matter where you are.

Police officers should know the laws they enforce. There may be some small localities that don't train their deputies or police officers so you should call your State Police, in your community, if you want to know the law. I wouldn't ask a judge. You might have to wait until he goes to his chamber to research law books. ;-) Besides... They don't want to be bothered by common people they have little respect for (sometimes, but not always the case).

Concealed weapon permits exist in Virginia, but not Alaska, where no citizen (exceptions are police officers, etc.) can legaly conceal a firearm. Although only a small portion of the weapon needs to be exposed, unless there has been recent rulings to the contrary. Concealed weapon laws vary from State to State, and in some States, even community to community, but if a concealed weapons law exist, you can be certain that black powder firearms carry the same designation as smokeless firearms. There may be different hunting seasons for muzzle loaders but I doubt seriously there are different laws of concealment.

As for a weapon of self defense... If it is all you have then go for it. Anything in hand is okay when it comes to protecting the life of you or some other victim. I can assure you I'd grab my 9mm, 357, or even my 38 before I'd grab my 1860 Colt or Walker 44. Not to say that my 12 guage would do better than any of them. Repairs to damaged walls or furnature would be my least concern in a life threatening situation. But... To each his own. If you feel good about black powder for self defense, then go for it. It's your life, or maybe your wife and children that is at stake.

Personally, I think every household should be trained and have safe but quick access to firearms for self defense. I can assure you that it would make a difference in the rate of home invasions. There would be less victims if the bad guys knew their intended victims were armed and ready. Bad guys have them in their house, in their cars, and on their person. The good guys should at least have them in their house, and even on their person if a permit is issued. I wouldn't want to have every citizen walking around with guns on their hips because I've seen the violent behavour of good law abiding citizens when anger clouds their judgement. Road rage or other temporary outburst of anger would make it unsafe to be in public. We need our firearm laws to keep people safe. We also need our firearms to keep people safe.

A felon responded to this post and I'm sure he or she knows that the felony firearm laws is a gross error in justice. I would agree that the laws should apply to those who use a firearm in the commission of a felony, or maybe if the felony was of a violent nature, but so many felons do not fit in those categories and don't deserve the same loss of rights. Ed.

AntiqueCollector
March 20, 2007, 12:40 PM
Concealed weapon permits exist in Virginia, but not Alaska, where no citizen (exceptions are police officers, etc.) can legaly conceal a firearm.

Wrong! Anyone can conceal in Alaska without any permit, just like VT.

Old Dragoon
March 20, 2007, 02:34 PM
My buddy Cowboy in Louisville Ky used to say it this way.

"You don't argue Constitional Law with a Georgia State Trooper on a dirt road at 3 in the Morning."

BigBlock
March 20, 2007, 04:00 PM
BigBlocks, if gun laws say it's ok to carry loaded antiques guns then will another law governing the same antique being loaded and concealed take precedent if the judge decides to follow another type law? instead of "gun" use "lethal weapons" or some kind of "concealed weapons" law that includes anything that can be considered a weapon?

Oregon law makes no distinction between loaded and unloaded guns, except in public buildings like courthouses. There is no law banning all concealed weapons in general, only firearms and some forms of knives. It is really quite clear as long as you can understand legal speak, and I certainly hope any judge can. It's not just a loophole that I'm talking about, there is a specific statute that says antiques and replicas are not firearms, they are not handguns, and they are exempt from the other statute banning concealed firearms. Personally, I am not going to be afraid to follow the law in my own state. If a police officer arrests me for not breaking the law I will make his live a living hell. The local news would have a hayday with that, especially considering all the other black eyes the local department has.


but if a concealed weapons law exist, you can be certain that black powder firearms carry the same designation as smokeless firearms.

Wrong. Go read the statutes I posted above. It's quite clear that muzzleloaders are exempt. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Cosmoline
March 20, 2007, 04:20 PM
Concealed weapon permits exist in Virginia, but not Alaska, where no citizen (exceptions are police officers, etc.) can legaly conceal a firearm. Although

?? I think you may have typed that wrong.

DuncanSA
March 20, 2007, 04:33 PM
Re post 13. Our government is continuing its program of totally disarming the populace, and legisation is now in the pipe-line making is necessary to licence any weapon manufactured after 1900. This includes all replicas such as C&B pistols, rifles etc.

The licencing process is complex and expensive. Weapons which do not achieve licensed status are required to be sold within a limited period on a non-existent market or are seized and destroyed by the State.

Further comment is needless.

pohill
March 20, 2007, 05:27 PM
Big Block, I don't know what county you live in, but for sh...s and giggles, I called:
Washington County Sheriff's Office
215 SW Adams Avenue
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
Phone: (503) 846-2761

and they told me that, absolutely, you must have a concealed carry permit if you carry a BP revolver, loaded and concealed in Oregon.
They (she) said that fine points of the law like this are argued everyday in court, and why take the chance of being wrong?

Apparently it comes down to the definition of "firearm" in regards to concealment, and it reads:
(2) “Firearm” means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder and which is readily capable of use as a weapon.

The girl I spoke to was going to run it by their attorney who handles this issues, so maybe he'll have a different interpretation.

Hey, don't blame me - I'm only the messenger.

If this is not your local Sheriff's Office, I'd call the right one and ask them.

BigBlock
March 20, 2007, 06:56 PM
Pohill, you said yourself, as a cop, were not clear on the law. Why do you think other cops are a clear place to get the law? What part of the statutes I posted don't you understand? They use complicated language, but the intent is very clear.

I agree with you completely that cops probably do not know this law. The cops you called obviously didn't. But that doesn't change the law, and if they arrest me, I WILL have the last laugh. The media loves this kind of thing.

It doesn't matter anyway, because I do not conceal my guns. I am proud to display them in any and all circumstances.

pohill
March 20, 2007, 07:11 PM
What part of the statutes I posted don't you understand?


Ah, what part of this don't you understand?
(2) “Firearm” means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder and which is readily capable of use as a weapon.

How does the media love this kind of thing?

Anyone listening to BigBlock's interpretation of gun laws does so at their own peril. Good friggin' luck.

carebear
March 20, 2007, 07:51 PM
You've been gone too long Ed, though you picked a good couple states to live in. :D

Alaska got "shall issue" in, what Cosmo, '93? '95?

Just a couple years ago we went to "no permit required" like Vermont, although they are still available for reciprocity purposes (though they now no longer exempt you from the NICS check, Fed's playing games :mad: ).

State preemption, MG neutral/friendly LEO, open carry legal, fairly short list of prohibited places...

Life is good.

Heck, VA is, perhaps, looking at the introduction of an "Alaska Carry" bill next legislative season.

sundance44s
March 20, 2007, 08:01 PM
These carry Laws are so different from state to state ..it would surly be best to check with your state before carrying anything for self defence ... In MS. where I live I can beat the crap out of my neighbor with my fists and it`s just a simple assualt ....BUT if I go after him with a rock in my hand ..it`s a felony .... I can obtain a conceal to carry permit , real easy ..just a money racket here ...and If I don`t have a permit and get caught carrying a wepon concealed ..just a slap on the hand and a 50 dollar fine ...I can drive my truck with a loaded pistol on the seat ...thats okok .. see different states are different ...make a few calls ..find out ...other wise don`t hide a rock in your pocket .

BigBlock
March 20, 2007, 08:37 PM
Pohill,

The law making concealed weapons illegal in this state says this:
166.250 Unlawful possession of firearms. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section or ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:

(a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person;

(b) Possesses a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle; or


And then 166.460, which was named above, says:
166.460 Antique firearms excepted. (1) ORS 166.250, 166.260, 166.291 to 166.295, 166.410, 166.412, 166.425, 166.434, 166.438 and 166.450 do not apply to antique firearms.


In plain english:
"Concealed firearms are illegal, unless you have a concealed carry permit, or your firearm meets the definition of antique firearm."

Worst case scenario, it's only a class A misdemeanor.

Cosmoline
March 20, 2007, 08:59 PM
Antique generally = the NFA definition, which is pre 1898. Antique generally does not include muzzleloaders made after that date, though they may be exempted in their own provision.

pohill
March 20, 2007, 09:10 PM
I will post this one more time, in small letters, and then I am done:
(2) “Firearm” means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of powder and which is readily capable of use as a weapon.

I should have known better than to get into a pissin' contest with someone who doesn't know the difference between a rock and a Glock.

BigBlock
March 20, 2007, 09:27 PM
I'm sure glad you're not a cop anymore. You can't understand the laws when they're highlighted with notes...

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER IT'S DEFINED AS A FIREARM OR NOT!

AntiqueCollector
March 20, 2007, 09:29 PM
It isn't an issue of whether or not it is a firearm but if it's defined as an antique under the law and exempt from the restrictions on carrying in those states with restrictions on conceal carry (as opposed to states like AK and VT where no permit is needed for any gun to be carried). BigBlock posted above an example of one state's laws that specifically exempt what the law defines as an antique firearm from the law requiring a permit for carry.

I don't get why you keep repeating the same thing pohill when it's been shown every state has different laws on the subject?

DixieTexian
March 20, 2007, 10:53 PM
In Texas, the law specificaly says that guns manufactured before 1899 are not firearms, and that replicas of guns manufactured before 1899 are not firearms as long as they do not use rimfire or centerfire ammunition. They will probably slap something else on you, but I think it is pretty clear that it is not a firearm. That said, I still wouldn't try to board an airplane with one...:evil:

happybrew
March 20, 2007, 11:18 PM
Pohill:

As an Oregon resident who wished to understand Oregon gun laws, I reviewed the ORS's a while back, Big Block is correct. Yes, BP firearms are firearms, however they are considered a special class of firearms which are specifically exempted from the concealed carry laws unless local ordinances provide for it. It is a peculiarity of Oregon law, but it is there. It even defines what an antique firearm is.

That being said, I can't imagine carrying one and without getting arrested if it is discovered by a police officer. Wrongly arrested at that.

happybrew

mike101
March 21, 2007, 04:29 AM
OK, it's pretty clear that the laws vary greatly from state to state. I used NJ as an example, because here, if it shoots rubber bands, it's a firearm. That's a big problem in this country. What we need are standardized gun laws, the same for every state, using the 2nd Ammendment as a guide, which means NO GUN LAWS.

Still, if you can't get a permit to carry, and you feel the need, I'd carry a BP revolver, anyway. At least it's not a federal violation. As Joseph Wambaugh once said, "It's better to be judged by twelve, than carried by eight."

I agree. :cool:

carebear
March 21, 2007, 01:45 PM
mike,

Absent an actual absolutist Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd incorporated to the states, the last thing I want is uniform gun laws.

State's rights are important for a number of reasons, one of the biggest is it gives you decisions at a political level a single person can really effect.

The other biggie is it gives you somewhere to go if you can't effect that change. Uniform gun laws will, by human nature, be uniformly bad for gun owners. At least with the state's free to make their own laws you can move to a better place and then pick and choose where you travel.

We have Federal Republic for a reason, strong central governments are almost always the worst choice for anything. I'd much rather live with a patchwork of laws I can control and choose from, than laws that can change on the whim of voters thousands of miles away.

Ed Gallop
March 22, 2007, 01:08 PM
Yes... I have been gone too long. I miss Alaska a lot but don't miss police work very much. I just called one of my cop friends there who cleared it up for me. The law was changed over 3 years ago, long since I retired. I might add that I said... "unless there was a recent ruling otherwise". Three years at my old age (66) is considered recent.

The ruling when I was active was that if only a very small portion of the holster was exposed it wouldn't be considered concealed. It could appear to be a cell phone, Buck knife, or just a lump on your belt. However, if you carried a completely hidden gun you could be arrested. No permits were issued at all. Now, they issue permits, eventhough you don't need one. It may be of some help when traveling to other jurisdictions but I doubt many other States would honor an Alaskan permit.

Glad to see Alaska change that law. It wasn't much good anyway. Never arrested anyone on the street for a concealed weapon. I did in a bar when uncooperative though. Didn't matter if concealed or not. Ed.

carebear
March 22, 2007, 01:22 PM
Ed,

The actual shall-issue permit law came in the early/mid 1990's during the wave of states following Florida's example. At that point it was legal to carry fully concealed, no dinking around with bits of holster. In 2003 they just removed the permit requirement, so we've been legally CCW for well over a decade now.

AK's permit was almost immediately good in a bunch of states with similar permit requirements and is now up to about 26. Alaska accepts any other state's permit but, of course, allows any person not lawfully forbidden to own a gun to carry concealed. Even residents of DC, Maryland and Illinois.

Ed Gallop
March 24, 2007, 12:23 PM
Thanks for the updates Carebear. That was not long after I retired. Even at my age, a decade is a long time, especially when you think you may not live much longer than that. As with most old farts, I've been out of touch with changes in laws. I'd rather be playing with my old guns, flying around on nice days, fishing my favorite local trout stream, or do fun inside hobbies on bad days. Can't blame me for that. Ed.

carebear
March 24, 2007, 02:34 PM
Don't blame you at all. You've earned a little bit of not having to care about keeping up with everything. :D

Maybe think about a flying, fishing, non-permit carrying vacation sometime, see how things have changed.

pohill
March 31, 2007, 01:01 PM
I'm sure glad you're not a cop anymore. You can't understand the laws when they're highlighted with notes...


One part of being a cop that I do not miss is dealing with Big Block Heads, the friggin' know-it alls of the world. Go ahead and carry whatever the hell you want - just don't come on here and whine like a little girl when you get busted.

And, by the way, I'm not a cop anymore because I got seriouly injured on the job...Would I ever recommend anyone putting their health on the line for the Cop "Lovers" of the world? Never in a million years. Never Ever...

BigBlock
March 31, 2007, 04:08 PM
You must have thought everyone was a "know it all" because you are obviously clueless of the laws. It's a common problem for dumb people to think everyone else is a "know it all". :rolleyes:

The laws couldn't be more clear, and several other people agree with me...yet you still have to bitch about it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You give cops everywhere a bad name. Cops like you are why there are so many cop haters out there. You were performing a disservice to the second ammendment, and gun enthusiasts everywhere.

carebear
March 31, 2007, 04:16 PM
High Road

No personal attacks, even in response to personal attacks.

Warren
April 3, 2007, 03:59 AM
Here is another BP for defense thread that managed to go for over a 100 posts without devolving into acrimony.

Click here. (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=224795&highlight=black+powder+defense)

I love the idea of BP revolvers and plan to own some soon, but for defense I would be worried about getting off more than two shots and/or being able to manage a quick reload.

A shotgun backed up by a semi-auto pistol or modern revolver is what I'll depend on in a home defense situation.

But if BP is all one has then may the fates be with ye.

Tinker2
April 3, 2007, 11:17 AM
Pohill

“I'm not a cop anymore because I got seriously injured on the job...”

Thank you my friend for your service. My heart goes out to you.
If I can ever be of any service or help to you please ask.


Proud to know you.
Tinker2

Ed Gallop
April 3, 2007, 12:32 PM
Being a cop is a very demanding and a risky job that few citizens realize. It is hard to tolerate unreasonable criticism and disrespect generated by a few not so good cops. I have run into a lot of citizens with attitudes and a lot of cops with attitudes. It is human nature to stereotype and we all do it.

Most cops are caring decent people, as are most citizens. The difference is most cops feel a need to put their life on the line every day in an attempt to make life better for caring decent people. When you deal with parasites in our society, at the level cops do, it is easy to become cynical and less tolerant. It is a developed attitude that is sometimes hard to control. When you deal directly with victims, and you feel their pain, it becomes even harder.

People just don’t understand what is involved in the life of a cop and some cops forget what it is like to be a citizen. They have been placed into another category and constantly critized, more than any other position in society. Hell... I even critize incompetent cops and those that show their bad attitudes, but otherwise have tremendous respect.

I too was forced to retire a little early due to an on-the-job injury as a cop. It was the toughest adjustment of my life. Many of my close cop friends were killed in the line of duty so I feel lucky to be alive in my golden years. Very few of us are.

One thing I like about this forum is the lack of personal attacks. It makes being here more comfortable. But, sometimes our frustrations get away from us and we normally regret it later. I understand both sides but don’t agree with either. What we need in life is more understanding and caring for others. Holding your breath and not attacking each other is a result.

My hat is off to the regulators of this forum and every caring participant. Ed.

O.S.O.K.
April 4, 2007, 07:47 PM
And rather than comment on cap and ball as a legal firearm, I would rather just show a couple of pics of what I would use for defense should I need to use a bp revolver:

http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/medium/HPIM0325.JPG
http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/medium/HPIM0323.JPG
Its a Pietta Colt 1860 snubby - 44 of course. Comes with the loading tool shown.

If I were inclined or limited to bp revolvers totally, then my house guns would also include these two bad boys:
http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/medium/HPIM0382.JPG
Uberti Colt Dragoon 3rd model and Pietta 1860 Army. Both .44's.

Regardless of how the law looks at em, a bad guy will be looking at the first picture with balls in the cylinders of course :evil:

They all function 100% when loaded and capped carefully. I wouldn't feel at all underarmed with any.

As to the law, I take the time to get the carry permit and pay the unconstitutional tax along with it so that I'm covered. Especially since I may have as many as 10 firearms in my jeep on the way to/fro the range.

rifle
April 5, 2007, 01:44 AM
One picture is worth a thousand words.:eek: Cooll pics too. Never seen one of those loading tools before.:what:

O.S.O.K.
April 5, 2007, 01:54 PM
Thanks, yeah that came with the pistol - these were offered by Cabelas a few years back since discontinued... you could make one of course, but it'd be a bit of work. I have a nice cross-draw holster for it.

Jamie C.
April 11, 2007, 02:07 AM
In plain english:
"Concealed firearms are illegal, unless you have a concealed carry permit, or your firearm meets the definition of antique firearm."

Worst case scenario, it's only a class A misdemeanor.

Interesting thing about laws is, you have to not only learn all of 'em, and how they cross-reference each other, but also how the judge is gonna interpret them...

For instance, a muzzle loader might not be a "handgun", by Oregon state law, but it is a firearm, and a weapon apparently.

Now, given that, I wouldn't wanna run afoul of this little tid-bit, with a judge who's not inclined to have people running around armed:

166.240 Carrying of concealed weapons. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any person who carries concealed upon the person any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force, any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slungshot, metal knuckles, or any similar instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person, commits a Class B misdemeanor.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies to any peace officer as defined in ORS 133.005, whose duty it is to serve process or make arrests. Justice courts have concurrent jurisdiction to try any person charged with violating any of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section. [Amended by 1977 c.454 §1; 1985 c.543 §2; 1989 c.839 §21; 1999 c.1040 §15]

You'll notice "Antique Weapons" aren't exempt here?

They might not get you for carrying a concealed handgun, but they certainly left the door open to get you with a concealed weapon.

Also, I'd like to see this:
"...dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015"

Where is ORS 161.015? The section you're using as a reference starts at 166. I'm sure parts of 161 have a pretty strong bearing on what a judge might decide concerning toting a loaded BP pistol around... Believe me, they can be downright bastardly about it.


( Oh, and for what it's worth, I've spent a little time in court, and know how this stuff can go. ;) )




J.C.

If you enjoyed reading about "Black Powder for Self Defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!