Question about "antique firearms"

[Working Man]

The description for a firearm that I have found is this:

The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may
readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.


Does this mean that a person can legally carry an antique firearm without having a CHL
in an area where a CHL is required to carry a firearm?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The ATF does not require paperwork or licenses to trade in antique firearms, but I don't know how specific states would treat them.

 

[Car Knocker]

State law would prevail and I think you would find that most states would prohibit this. The definition you posted may very well not be the same definition that states/localities use.

 

[deadin]

As said above, They are not "firearms" when it comes to the buying/selling "trade". However they are still "weapons" when it comes to CCW (or pistols in case of CPL, etc.)

 

[wdlsguy]

Here is Texas' definition of firearm:

Texas Penal Code § 46.01. DEFINITIONS.
In this chapter:
...
(3) "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 a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:
(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or
(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.
...

Does this mean that a person can legally carry an antique firearm without having a CHL in an area where a CHL is required to carry a firearm?

In theory, yes (in Texas). In reality, you will be arrested, jailed, and will need to hire an attorney if you are caught. It's a much better idea to get a CHL.

IANAL

 

[Old Fuff]

In most places an antique, or replica of one, is not considered a firearm, unless it is loaded and carried in that state. Once you load your antique, replica, or relic it becomes a weapon, although it may not be legally defined as a firearm. If you're not sure, check it out a a local gun dealer's shop.

 

[BigBlock]

All states are different of course. Oregon law specifically exempts antiques from the concealed carry statutes. It's not some crazy backdoor loophole, it is very clear legally that you can conceal one, loaded or not.

I would be willing to bet most of the uneducated and rude police officers around here would try to arrest you, but they would be very much in the wrong.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't think you can blame police officers if they catch you carrying an antique, even if its legal. How is the officer supposed to know it is an antique if he is not a firearms historian?

 

[LAR-15]

If it's got a flint and frizzen?

 

[Working Man]

Thanks guys.
My concern was in regards to the legality of the issue as a
point of interest not as a loop hole.

I agree that more likely than not one would be arrested, even
if legal in that area. Kinda sad.

 

[BigBlock]

How is the officer supposed to know it is an antique if he is not a firearms historian?

If it's muzzleloading it should be painfully obvious...every officer should have at least a basic understanding of firearms types.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

LAR-15 and BigBlock,

Muzzle loaders are easy, but how does he tell a SAA made in 1899 from one made in 1901?

 

[yesit'sloaded]

Why does state law prevail, I thought the constitution was the supreme law of the land. Was I taught wrong or is the law just not being followed?

 

[LAR-15]

You do have a point regarding the SAA

 

[jefnvk]

yesitsloaded, I am guess it has somethign to do with the fact that the United States Code (all the federal laws), is a completely different documetn than the Constitution (directions for how the government is to be run).

That is, however, purely speculative.

And I'm sure someone will be along soon to point out the feds dont always follow the rules.

 

[Jim K]

You folks are looking at the definition of firearms in regard to firearms laws. But the illegal carrying and the use of a weapon in crime come under criminal laws which generally use the term "weapon" or "deadly or dangerous weapon." That includes not only antique firearms, but also air pistols, blank pistols, bows, knives, blowguns, clubs, blackjacks, etc., etc. Even a brick can be a deadly weapon if it is used to beat someone's head in.

So in regard to the laws on carrying weapons, assault with a weapon, armed robbery, etc., whether the firearm is an antique is totally irrelevant. If you stick up a store with a Model 1836 flintlock pistol, it is armed robbery just as if you used a .40 Glock. Further, even a simulated or toy weapon (or a finger in the pocket to look like a gun) is a weapon for armed robbery purposes, since the victim is placed in fear for his life whether the danger is real or not.

Some time ago, a man in Florida held up a bank by brandishing a snake(!). He was convicted of armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon even though he claimed the snake was not poisonous.

Jim

 

[cnorman18]

State vs Federal law

"Why does state law prevail, I thought the constitution was the supreme law of the land. Was I taught wrong or is the law just not being followed?"

The Constitution IS the supreme law of the land; but it specifically limits the powers of the Federal government, and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the Feds to the states--see the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Absent specific laws passed by the Federal government, state law prevails.

Oh--and if you're wondering how states or municipalities can pass laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms--well, that's what the D.C. Case is all about. If a state passes a law that is unconstitutional, it STANDS until someone challenges that law in a Federal court. That's the way the system works.

This is why the D.C. Case is so important; for the very first time, a U.S. Federal District Court has ruled directly on the meaning of the Second Amendment, and found that it does indeed guarantee an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. It's a HUGE win for our side, and if that decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, even bigger.