Is a blackpowder weapon considered a "firearm?"

[Don231s]

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Why is this thread in "firearms chat" instead of "gun laws" ? It IS a legal question, right?

 

[Ken Ford]

Why is this thread in "firearms chat" instead of "gun laws" ? It IS a legal question, right?

About firearms.

Would work in both.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

...

I took my daughter to Kennesaw Mountain this past weekend for Junior Ranger Day.... There were two different presenters that each had functioning blackpowder rifles. One was a flintlock, the other a percussion mechanism. I didn't think a thing about it.

Well, daughter has to go potty, so we go inside the visitor center and sure enough, there's the big "no glocks" sign with the persuant legalese about this building being a prohibited place. ..

A few comments:

1.) WHAT ZONE? If the black powder rifle demonstration was held outdoors, and then you walked into the visitor's center building, you may have been in a federal gun-free zone, but the real estate outside would not necessarily be off limits.
Sometimes buildings are prohibited, but not the lawns and parking lots around them.

2.) WHAT LAWS APPLY? We're talking a federal facility, and the only law you're worried about is the one that the sign on the visitor's center building references, right? That's Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 930.
Because that general gun ban on federal facilities is found in 18 USC Sec. 930, it means that the term "firearm" as used throughout the Gun Control Act of 1968 applies to that federal facility gun ban too.

3.) DOES BLACK POWDER NEGATE "FIREARM"?
The federal definition of "firearm" excludes antiques (made before 1898, the date of the Spanish-American War, from which many cheap surplus weapons made their way to the civilian arms market). Another federal definition of "antique" includes muzzle-loading black powder guns and cap-and-ball revolvers. They are not "firearms" if they're within the definition of "antique" (which includes replicas of antiques).

4.) IS IT A DANGEROUS WEAPON ANYWAY?
But, 18 U.S.C. section 930 doesn't ONLY ban "firearms." It also bans other dangerous weapons. Certainly a black powder rifle is a dangerous weapon. Therefore, it's banned for THAT reason. Not because it's a "firearm."

 

[handloader]

A few comments:

1.) WHAT ZONE? If the black powder rifle demonstration was held outdoors, and then you walked into the visitor's center building, you may have been in a federal gun-free zone, but the real estate outside would not necessarily be off limits.
Sometimes buildings are prohibited, but not the lawns and parking lots around them.

2.) WHAT LAWS APPLY? We're talking a federal facility, and the only law you're worried about is the one that the sign on the visitor's center building references, right? That's Title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 930.
Because that general gun ban on federal facilities is found in 18 USC Sec. 930, it means that the term "firearm" as used throughout the Gun Control Act of 1968 applies to that federal facility gun ban too.

3.) DOES BLACK POWDER NEGATE "FIREARM"?
The federal definition of "firearm" excludes antiques (made before 1898, the date of the Spanish-American War, from which many cheap surplus weapons made their way to the civilian arms market). Another federal definition of "antique" includes muzzle-loading black powder guns and cap-and-ball revolvers. They are not "firearms" if they're within the definition of "antique" (which includes replicas of antiques).

4.) IS IT A DANGEROUS WEAPON ANYWAY?
But, 18 U.S.C. section 930 doesn't ONLY ban "firearms." It also bans other dangerous weapons. Certainly a black powder rifle is a dangerous weapon. Therefore, it's banned for THAT reason. Not because it's a "firearm."

Cliff notes.....don't try some stupid **** and you probably won't wind up in jail. Being stupid may not be illegal, but it can register you for a Darwin award presented by those around you.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Nor do I, brother...nor do I.

Chicken.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Chicken.

<-- also unwilling to molon labe over a rifle stock

 

[yellowhammer]

You can carry in national parks except for some buildings. I`ve carried in several. Grand Canyon,for instance, you can carry on the grounds and some buildings,but the only place to eat has "no gun"signs. So we ate out of our coolers on the tailgate. If the park is inside a non-friendly-to-guns state I don`t think you can carry. I would have to look that up again. I don`t travel in states where I can`t carry. PERIOD.

 

[spencer60]

Yup, with Nat'l park carry you also have to be legal to carry in the state as well. Same for the new rules about carry on Corp of Engineer land from what I just saw in the GCO newlesster writeup about it.

 

[StuP]

So what you're saying is, it's a "sensible gun law" that prevents "gun violence"?

Feel free to illustrate how I 'said' that.

I support the proposition that being convicted of certain crimes results in the loss of 2nd amendment rights.

I see no reason to make it easier for a convicted criminal to obtain a firearm, I'm not naive enough to believe it prevents them from doing so though.

It's up to an individual's conscience to decide if they'd supply a convicted child murderer with a gun upon their release, (see, the word "child" is in the sentence, so it can't be argued against).