Black powder weapons

[Skeptilius]

According to 46.01 Definitions, a "firearm" must use rim fire or center fire ammunition to qualify as a firearm. Replica pistols using black powder and percussion cap are not technically firearms. Now what are the chances of you getting away with carrying one of those in your belt and not being arrested?
Skeptiius

[seamusTX]

I would say about 50-50. Some officers would arrest the same as if you were packing a centerfire .44 Magnum and let the DA's office sort it out. Some would know the law. Some would call the DA's office and be told the law.

I'd say your chances of sitting in the back seat of a cruiser handcuffed were closer to 100%, whether you were taken to the station or not.

- Jim

[couzin]

Are you a felon or a minor? Why would you want to skirt around the legal opportunity to possess and/or carry a modern handgun?

True enough 46.04 (3) does define "Firearm" as a "device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel..." but does not include a "firearm 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."

I would not take my pre-1899 guns (replica or not) out and strut them 'in my belt'. And, I bet you - if you strap on a black powder gun and use it as a weapon (or get caught up in 'gang activity' (a catch all prosecution)) - any exemptions you might think you fall under will quickly go away.

Just a thought!

[couzin]

There I go - being insensitive again...! I have got to stop reading Ann Coulter...

[seamusTX]

The OP didn't say he wanted to skirt the law. He just asked asked about an issue which has been discussed a number of times.

Because non-cartridge weapons are not firearms under Texas or federal law, you can legally carry a handgun of that type without a CHL, and you can go places where firearms are prohibited, like, say, Army Corps of Engineers land.

In either case, as I suggested, you may have to prove your case to a judge.

I should also mention that some states do not recognize this distinction. Illinois and New Jersey are two that I know of.

BTW, welcome to the forum, Skeptilius. I just noticed that that was your first post.

- Jim

[Rex B]

So a modern BP gun like a NAA mini would not fall within this definition, since it is not a replica of any pistol extant in 1898

[seamusTX]

I guess you mean this, which I had not heard of before:
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/prod ... s_id/51220" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The way I read the law, you would be correct. If a weapon of modern manufacture is not a replica of a weapon that existed in the 19th century, it would be a firearm under Texas law.

Also, that revolver looks like it could be loaded with .22 rimfire. If that's the case, it definitely would be a firearm handgun under Texas law.

There also are some muzzle-loading rifles with modern features that would be considered firearms, IMO. They are used by hunters in places that have a muzzle-loader-only season.

- Jim

[Skeptilius]

To all who are interested, I have no intention of ever carrying a black powder pistol. I am a retired peace officer and I was just speculating on a quirk in Texas law regarding the definition of a firearm. Frankly, I don't understand why the distinction between black powder and modern weapons even exist. Both are just as deadly. I really don't know what the legislature was thinking when they wrote that law. I'm glad to see some responses to the issue because this subject came up in a CHL class I took recently.

[seamusTX]

When the federal government began to regulate firearms, they defined weapons manufactured before 1898 as not subject to the law. I don't know why. My guess is that it had to do with grandfathering weapons that are not much used in any case.

Texas just imitated the federal law at some point in the revision of the statutes, which is required every 25 years (IIRC).

- Jim

[jimlongley]

To all who are interested, I have no intention of ever carrying a black powder pistol. I am a retired peace officer and I was just speculating on a quirk in Texas law regarding the definition of a firearm. Frankly, I don't understand why the distinction between black powder and modern weapons even exist. Both are just as deadly. I really don't know what the legislature was thinking when they wrote that law. I'm glad to see some responses to the issue because this subject came up in a CHL class I took recently.

A similar quirk in NY State law saved me from a dance with the police. My wife and kids, aware of the pre-1898 exemption in NY's law, which was liberally pushed by Connecticut Valley Arms back then, bought me a Kentucky pistol kit for Christmas a bunch of years ago. I very carefully and almost lovingly assembled and finished the gun and was quite pleased with, even proud of, the result.

Knowing that NY's law was a little more stringent than some of the others, incorporating "unloaded" and then defining loaded as including even possessing the component necessary to load the gun, such as black powder and lead, I carefully plugged the bore and blocked the flash hole, rendering it inoperable and in compliance with another section of the law. I did this because I was an active black powder rifle hunter and shooter and possessed all of the necessary components.

The pistol was one of the things that was stolen when our house was burglarized, I imagine the kid that stole it had some fun trying to get rid of it in the condition it was in, it was obviously a display piece. The cops who responded to our report of the burglary got all excited about my possessing an "unregistered .45 caliber pistol" and had to have the law repeated to them by me, a sergeant, and then the detective that came to investigate, before they dropped the mention of arresting me.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I ran across a post from a criminal attorney on OpenCarry.org dealing with this subject. He said there is Texas case law on this issue and that carrying a pre-1899 pistol has been held to violate TPC 46.02, a/k/a UCW. He posted a link to his law firm's website discussing the pre-1899 issue and I think he also cited some case law on the subject. I don't have a link, but I think it was in the thread promoting an open-carry long gun demonstration in Texas.

Chas.

[Moonpie]

I've always heard that a BP firearm falls under two exceptions:

1.) It can be shipped. bought, sold without FFL involvment.

2.) It CANNOT be carried as a "weapon".
BP gun falls under the same rules as a standard firearm if a person is actually out carrying it.