Legalities of owning a muzzleloading artillery piece

[Aragon]

For a while now I have been researching the legalities of owning a muzzleloading artillery piece and have had to sift through both fact and fiction. Here is what I have learned:

* The BATFE does not control muzzleloading artillery pieces. Some states and localities have rules but the BATFE does not.

* They are not "destructive devices" or Class III NFA weapons per the BATFE.

* The BATFE doesn't control them because they are muzzleloading artillery pieces.

* They can be rifled or smoothbores. It makes no difference with regard to the BATFE.

* They can use black powder or smokeless powder. It makes no difference with regard to the BATFE.

* They aren't limited to how much explosive (eg. black powder) or propellent (eg. smokeless powder) they are able to use per shot by the BATFE.

* There is no size (caliber) limit with regard to the BATFE.

* The piece need not be an antique or a copy of an antique.

Breech-loading artillery pieces that fire cartridges are an entirely different story and are typically highly controlled by the BATFE depending on their age and other variables.

 

[HankB]

I've read that breech-loading artillery that is not cartridge based isn't regulated, either . . . I don't know for sure, but I don't see anyone obtaining a functional 16" battleship gun anytime soon.

I believe the law states that any projectile containing more than 1/4 oz. of explosive would itself be considered a destructive device, so even if the cannon is unregulated, it's possible the fun and games would still be constrained.

IANAL, so if someone knows otherwise, feel free to educate me.

 

[Aragon]

I've read that breech-loading artillery that is not cartridge based isn't regulated, either . . . I don't know for sure, but I don't see anyone obtaining a functional 16" battleship gun anytime soon.

Some "breech-loading artillery that is not cartridge based" is regulated. It depends on the piece. This is about muzzleloading artillery though.

FWIW, there is someone with an old 5" naval gun that's been converted to a muzzleloader that's now mounted to a semi trailer floating around somewhere.

I believe the law states that any projectile containing more than 1/4 oz. of explosive would itself be considered a destructive device, so even if the cannon is unregulated, it's possible the fun and games would still be constrained.

IANAL, so if someone knows otherwise, feel free to educate me.

Projectiles for muzzleloaders typically don't contain explosives or propellent for propulsion. Exploding ammo on the other hand projectiles is another topic altogether.

 

[bainter1212]

Well....a large muzzleloading field piece could wreak quite a bit of destruction given time to load a few rounds.
I doubt the BATFE are too worried about anybody using and old Napoleon to commit a school shooting.

 

[Drail]

If they are not worried then it is only because it hasn't been tried yet. One round into a gas main would make a pretty serious mess. "Oh, we NEVER thought anybody would try that!" Seems like we've heard that one before. It would almost justify all of the police depts. that now have armored vehicles. Almost. Wonder what a cannon could do to an MRAP with a carefully placed round into the engine comparment.

 

[Kaeto]

* The piece must not be and antique or a copy of an antique.

Incorrect or else the BATFE would be regulating Civil War Artillery Reenactment groups.

 

[Speedo66]

Incorrect or else the BATFE would be regulating Civil War Artillery Reenactment groups.

I think what he's saying is it doesn't have to be an antique or replica to be unregulated by the BATFE. Any design, modern or antique, is unregulated as long as it's muzzle loading.

 

[Aragon]

Incorrect or else the BATFE would be regulating Civil War Artillery Reenactment groups.

"The piece must not be an antique or a copy of an antique" = CORRECT.

Who suggested the BATFE is "regulating Civil War Artillery Reenactment groups"?

Not me. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Aragon]

I think what he's saying is it doesn't have to be an antique or replica to be unregulated by the BATFE. Any design, modern or antique, is unregulated as long as it's muzzle loading.

Yes indeed. Thanks for the clarification and comprehension.

 

[Kaeto]

"The piece must not be an antique or a copy of an antique" = (in)CORRECT.

Who suggested the BATFE is "regulating Civil War Artillery Reenactment groups"?

Not me. Quite the opposite in fact.

As I've seen you corrected the wording in the original post to where it now means that, but your original wording said that they did regulate antiques or copy's of antiques. This quote is your original wording.

Bolding and words in parentheses added by me.

 

[Aragon]

As I've seen you corrected the wording in the original post to where it now means that, but your original wording said that they did regulate antiques or copy's of antiques. This quote is your original wording.

Bolding and words in parentheses added by me.

You are wrong. My original wording did not say what you are suggesting. It said (and I quote):

"The piece must not be an(d) antique or a copy of an antique"

The "must not" was always there. It wasn't added. I did include an errant "d" though as noted. If you couldn't figure out that typo (as others did) that's on you. You honestly seem to be having a reading comprehension issue.

I changed the OP to read "The piece need not be an antique or a copy of an antique" which means the exact same thing but might be less confusing to you.

 

[Realist]

Muzzleloader artillery

You might take a look at muzzleloadingforum.com:
They discuss all manner of frontloader weapons.

 

[Aragon]

You might take a look at muzzleloadingforum.com:
They discuss all manner of frontloader weapons.

Thanks for the tip. That's one website I wasn't aware of. Some of the BP forums get very touchy when it comes to talking about non-vintage pieces...

 

[alsaqr]

Shooting old cannons can be hazardous to ones health:

Recap Of Cannon Accidents:

www.artilleryreserve.org/accident.pdf

Safety Rules When Firing Cannon:

http://www.civilwarnews.com/artillerysafety.htm

 

[230RN]

I believe the law states that any projectile containing more than 1/4 oz. of explosive would itself be considered a destructive device, so even if the cannon is unregulated, it's possible the fun and games would still be constrained.

???

I've seen videos of Civil War reenactments where the cannon shells were live, and the airbursts certainly looked like more than 1/4 oz of black powder. Are they differentiating "HE" compounds from BP mixtures in that usage of "1/4 oz?" And I know that July 4th aerial salutes often contain a lot more than 1/4 oz of burst charge... even though the "cannon" is usually of stout cardboard or plastic, it's still muzzleloading.

 

[Aragon]

???

I've seen videos of Civil War reenactments where the cannon shells were live, and the airbursts certainly looked like more than 1/4 oz of black powder. Are they differentiating "HE" compounds from BP mixtures in that usage of "1/4 oz?" And I know that July 4th aerial salutes often contain a lot more than 1/4 oz of burst charge... even though the "cannon" is usually of stout cardboard or plastic, it's still muzzleloading.

I agree. I started this thread to list all claims made about muzzleloading field pieces which simply aren't true.

 

[Sunray]

Start here. http://americanartillery.org/