Carry of pre-1899 weapons
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:16 pm
- Location: Ellis County now; adios Dallas!
Carry of pre-1899 weapons
Charles and/or other attorneys,
Here are some questions that stemmed from a bit of Penal Code research:
1) Given the definition of "firearm" in Penal Code section 46.01, and handgun which flows from it, is a CHL needed to carry a pre-1899 handgun?
2) If not, then is there any reason why it couldn't legally be carried openly, partly concealed, or concealed, as decided by the carrier?
3) Futher, would a pre-1899 handgun be exempt from all of the other prohibitions in section 46 (42 -- prohibited places, UCH by a license holder, etc.).
4) Since Section 42 (Disorderly Conduct, among other things) doesn't define "firearm" nor does it refer to a definition elsewhere do you think simply openly carrying a holstered pre-1899 handgun would qualify as disorderly conduct within the definition of 42.01(a)(8) ("displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;")
5) Is there any other provision of law that could make the carry of a pre-1899 firearm, openly, partly concealed, or concealed a crime or that it would be a crime given certain circumstances (time, place, location, manner, etc.)?
6) Is there any case law on this topic?
7) If one were arrested and initially charged with UCW or any other Section 46 charge which was later dismissed, would the arrest alone cause other problems (you'd have to disclose it on your CHL renewal form wouldn't you?)? Could you have it expunged or otherwise wiped away since you never actually violated any law?
My thoughts as a non-lawyer:
1) Jackpot! This appears to exempt you from all the things we dislike about the TX handgun laws: UCW w/o a CHL, CHL being concealed only, 51%/court offices/other prohibited places.
2) Internet references don't really mean much unless they are from a government agency but here are a few that are interesting that relate directly to pre-1899 weapons and how TX law is written:
http://www.rawles.to/Pre-1899_FAQ.html
Non-government source discussing pre-1899 firearms for federal and state law purposes.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publication ... unt/means/
Texas Parks & Wildlife about felons in possession for hunting. They say pre-1899 is LEGAL because of the 46.01 definition.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/safe/ch37/37.007.htm
Texas Education Agency recognizing that pre-1899 weapons aren't "firearms" for the purposes of mandatory explusion.
3) Having "prohibited places" be not-applicable would mean that you could carry darn near anywhere (yes, there are exceptions like federal property, Indian reservation, etc., but from a state point of view, it is darn near everywhere).
What am I missing?! It seems like the ultimate "carry-anywhere-for-free" solution.
Here are some questions that stemmed from a bit of Penal Code research:
1) Given the definition of "firearm" in Penal Code section 46.01, and handgun which flows from it, is a CHL needed to carry a pre-1899 handgun?
2) If not, then is there any reason why it couldn't legally be carried openly, partly concealed, or concealed, as decided by the carrier?
3) Futher, would a pre-1899 handgun be exempt from all of the other prohibitions in section 46 (42 -- prohibited places, UCH by a license holder, etc.).
4) Since Section 42 (Disorderly Conduct, among other things) doesn't define "firearm" nor does it refer to a definition elsewhere do you think simply openly carrying a holstered pre-1899 handgun would qualify as disorderly conduct within the definition of 42.01(a)(8) ("displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;")
5) Is there any other provision of law that could make the carry of a pre-1899 firearm, openly, partly concealed, or concealed a crime or that it would be a crime given certain circumstances (time, place, location, manner, etc.)?
6) Is there any case law on this topic?
7) If one were arrested and initially charged with UCW or any other Section 46 charge which was later dismissed, would the arrest alone cause other problems (you'd have to disclose it on your CHL renewal form wouldn't you?)? Could you have it expunged or otherwise wiped away since you never actually violated any law?
My thoughts as a non-lawyer:
1) Jackpot! This appears to exempt you from all the things we dislike about the TX handgun laws: UCW w/o a CHL, CHL being concealed only, 51%/court offices/other prohibited places.
2) Internet references don't really mean much unless they are from a government agency but here are a few that are interesting that relate directly to pre-1899 weapons and how TX law is written:
http://www.rawles.to/Pre-1899_FAQ.html
Non-government source discussing pre-1899 firearms for federal and state law purposes.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publication ... unt/means/
Texas Parks & Wildlife about felons in possession for hunting. They say pre-1899 is LEGAL because of the 46.01 definition.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/safe/ch37/37.007.htm
Texas Education Agency recognizing that pre-1899 weapons aren't "firearms" for the purposes of mandatory explusion.
3) Having "prohibited places" be not-applicable would mean that you could carry darn near anywhere (yes, there are exceptions like federal property, Indian reservation, etc., but from a state point of view, it is darn near everywhere).
What am I missing?! It seems like the ultimate "carry-anywhere-for-free" solution.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 17350
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:53 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
There is a thread started by LedJedi that discussed this. Do a search for black powder. Keep your powder dry.
NRA Endowment Member
-
- Banned
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 2173
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:24 pm
- Location: Smithville, TX
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
IANAL. And I have not researched the sections lf law that are being cited. Furthermore, I am not even curious enough about this to bother doing so. So if someone wants to say that I do not know what I am talking about, I fully agree.
But I would strongly advise people to not attempt to use this "technicality" whether it is valid or not. My instinct tells me that anyone trying this is gonna end up in jail and will probably lose their gun rights forever (after spending many thousands of dollars on attorney fees).
To me, this whole thing has "TROUBLE" written all over it.
It reminds me of the line that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified, so you don't have to pay federal income tax.
You wanna carry a gun in TX? Get a CHL, carry any gun you want (new or old), keep it concealed, don't carry it in prohibited places, and enjoy this great life that the Lord Almighty has blessed us all with.
But I would strongly advise people to not attempt to use this "technicality" whether it is valid or not. My instinct tells me that anyone trying this is gonna end up in jail and will probably lose their gun rights forever (after spending many thousands of dollars on attorney fees).
To me, this whole thing has "TROUBLE" written all over it.
It reminds me of the line that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified, so you don't have to pay federal income tax.
You wanna carry a gun in TX? Get a CHL, carry any gun you want (new or old), keep it concealed, don't carry it in prohibited places, and enjoy this great life that the Lord Almighty has blessed us all with.
Ahm jus' a Southern boy trapped in a Yankee's body
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 4899
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:10 pm
- Location: Vidor, Tx
- Contact:
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Texas and Louisiana CHL Instructor, NRA Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection and Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor
George Mason
Texas and Louisiana CHL Instructor, NRA Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Personal Protection and Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:17 am
- Location: Gravel Switch, KY
- Contact:
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
Would you trust your life with a 100+ year old antique?
I'm all for pushing boundaries, but this might be a bit far. It would at least be expensive to push it.
I'm all for pushing boundaries, but this might be a bit far. It would at least be expensive to push it.
http://www.AmarilloGunOwners.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:25 am
- Location: Stephenville TX
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
Why not? Lots of people trust theirs to a 1911 that was designed nearly that long ago. If maintained properly, most quality guns will function for centuries.flb_78 wrote:Would you trust your life with a 100+ year old antique?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
- Location: DFW area
- Contact:
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
KD5NRH wrote:Why not? Lots of people trust theirs to a 1911 that was designed nearly that long ago. If maintained properly, most quality guns will function for centuries.flb_78 wrote:Would you trust your life with a 100+ year old antique?
*CHL Instructor*
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan
Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1710
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:55 pm
- Location: Smith County
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
1. There's a big difference between designed 100 years ago and manufactured 100 years ago.KD5NRH wrote:Why not? Lots of people trust theirs to a 1911 that was designed nearly that long ago. If maintained properly, most quality guns will function for centuries.flb_78 wrote:Would you trust your life with a 100+ year old antique?
2. "If maintained properly" is a huge assumption to make about a weapon unless you have a detailed history over the entire 110+ years.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1886
- Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:11 am
- Location: Leander, TX
- Contact:
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
If I had tested and fired it enough at the range... sure.flb_78 wrote:Would you trust your life with a 100+ year old antique?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 6343
- Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
- Location: Galveston
- Contact:
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
The guns don't have to be antiques either they just have to be of the type, reproductions are fine.LarryH wrote:1. There's a big difference between designed 100 years ago and manufactured 100 years ago.KD5NRH wrote:Why not? Lots of people trust theirs to a 1911 that was designed nearly that long ago. If maintained properly, most quality guns will function for centuries.flb_78 wrote:Would you trust your life with a 100+ year old antique?
2. "If maintained properly" is a huge assumption to make about a weapon unless you have a detailed history over the entire 110+ years.
I Wouldn't advise anyone to carry carry a 100 year old weapon, it would be a shame to destroy a piece of history.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
-
Topic author - Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:16 pm
- Location: Ellis County now; adios Dallas!
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
The reproductions can't use rimfire or centerfire ammunition. Actual pre-1899 guns don't have that restriction. See the definition in Penal Code section 46.01.
For those who are wondering:
1) I have a CHL and I carry concealed and I don't carry in prohibited places.
2) I have no desire to become a test case.
3) I was throwing this out to the lawyers as a topic for discussion. Noticed how I addressed it.
4) I very much understand the distinction between technically legal -- if it is -- and smart to do. See #2.
5) I also agree that virtually no police officer would understand that openly carrying a pre-1899 handgun is legal -- if it actually is -- and that you would most likely be arrested and have to fight it out in court. See #2 above.
6) As far as a nearly 110 year old gun is conerned, I'm not a gunsmith but I would think that a revolver mechanism is simple enough that, properly cared for, yes it could be reliable. Am I carrying such a weapon? No.
So far, I've read lots of practical reasons why this shouldn't be done. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of them but that still leaves my original question: is it actually legal?
SA-TX
For those who are wondering:
1) I have a CHL and I carry concealed and I don't carry in prohibited places.
2) I have no desire to become a test case.
3) I was throwing this out to the lawyers as a topic for discussion. Noticed how I addressed it.
4) I very much understand the distinction between technically legal -- if it is -- and smart to do. See #2.
5) I also agree that virtually no police officer would understand that openly carrying a pre-1899 handgun is legal -- if it actually is -- and that you would most likely be arrested and have to fight it out in court. See #2 above.
6) As far as a nearly 110 year old gun is conerned, I'm not a gunsmith but I would think that a revolver mechanism is simple enough that, properly cared for, yes it could be reliable. Am I carrying such a weapon? No.
So far, I've read lots of practical reasons why this shouldn't be done. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of them but that still leaves my original question: is it actually legal?
SA-TX
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:17 am
- Location: Gravel Switch, KY
- Contact:
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
Legally, Yes, It sounds legal.SA-TX wrote:So far, I've read lots of practical reasons why this shouldn't be done. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of them but that still leaves my original question: is it actually legal?
SA-TX
http://www.AmarilloGunOwners.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 6134
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
- Location: Allen, TX
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
Actually, the basic design goes back earlier than that, the 1911 was merely a modification to meet military specifications.KD5NRH wrote:Why not? Lots of people trust theirs to a 1911 that was designed nearly that long ago. If maintained properly, most quality guns will function for centuries.flb_78 wrote:Would you trust your life with a 100+ year old antique?
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365
Re: Carry of pre-1899 weapons
Yes, it's legal. The law is pretty clear.SA-TX wrote:So far, I've read lots of practical reasons why this shouldn't be done. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of them but that still leaves my original question: is it actually legal?
Someone carrying an "antique", especially OC, will more than likely wind up having to prove their innocence, despite the Constitution.
Were I a millionaire activist, I'd consider it a worthy "test case" project.