Black Powder for Self Defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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]
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
So a muzzleloading revolver isn't even a handgun.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I'll ask a cop, one with some rank, which means experience.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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


'












'
 
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
NJ. Come, See For Yourself

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:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Black Powder shotshells for home defense
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
derek45
derek45
R
  • Locked
unloading a black powder revolver
Replies
13
Views
7K
mec
M
jaytex1969
  • Locked
Thompson Black Diamond Express
Replies
4
Views
5K
jaytex1969
jaytex1969
A
  • Locked
BP noob, and NAA Companion
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
TTv2
TTv2
M
  • Locked
Can a black powder firearm be used for home defense?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
156
Views
30K
Phantom Captain
P
Back
Top