Colt Navy Used in a Homicide

[Claude Mathis]

Claude,,
I don't think you can have any knife with two sharp sides in california, It's a felony,,

If the blade is short enough it's permissible.

 

[pepperbelly]

I hate to start going off on a political tangent, but our legislatore are mainly interested in getting reelected, not serving our needs. This has been brought up for years but I really believe our best bet is term limits on the congresscritters and state lawmakers.
We also need a hindsight clause. If a law is passed that makes no sense after it is applied it should be scrapped.
Jim

 

[Rebel]

Boy would we be scrapin' lots of laws then. :: Sure wish we could scrap some of the elected officials.

 

[Walker357]

My daddy used to say "Never vote for an incumbent. If he's too dumb to steal enough to live on in one term, he's too dumb to be in office." Admittedly, my father had a rather jaundiced view of politicians which he passed on to his only son. :redthumb:

 

[jdixon]

I am surprised at the level of interest in this situation. We knew that this was an unusual homicide given the firearm used but, after reading all of these posts, I get the opinion it is even more rare than I originally thought - which is a good thing!
My original post in this thread had a two-fold intention. First - just for the information to those here about what happened, second - to put out to those who would probably know best, what prosecutors and ATF people were telling us with regards to the charges applicable in this case. We, the local P.D., knew there were some differences given the fact than an antique weapon was used but, I and those involved in the actual investigation didn't have the time to research whether or not what we were being told was correct. After reading the replies to my post by Monday morning it was clear that there was something amiss with our legal information here. I then looked into the matter myself and made some phone calls. What I learned was yes, it is correct that our shooter in this situation, though he is a felon, could in this state possess a BP firearm and the necessary stuff to load and fire it without violating any state or Federal laws. So that much they told us was correct, the legal reasons why this was possible are not what we were originally told however. What appears below is long but, since there is an interest I have included it here. This is part of the text of a memo I sent to the detectives involved regarding the Federal regulations and state statutes which apply in this case with regards to the felon in possession decision. Any additional feedback on this would be greatly appreciated - thank you all for the help here.


"Regarding some of the confusion over weapons violations of our shooter the other night. Some of the early explanations given were askew however, it does appear to stand that there is no criminal violation of a convicted felon in this state simply possessing and using antique black powder weapons. Our

 

[JackAubrey]

If I may toss this in and please permit me to paraphrase.The Federal law we are discussing identifies and defines what is "a firearm" and what is not.If a weapon is manufactured on or before 1898 and does not fire fixed ammunition or fires obsolete ammunition,no longer manufactured and not available through normal avenues of trade or a replica therof, the weapon IS NOT A FIREARM and is exempt from the gun control act.It is a "RELIC AND/OR A CURIO",that is it's legal definition.THAT is why a felon was able to own it.It is NOT a loophole.It was intentionally placed in the act to protect blackpowder sporting arms.As to the ownership of blackpowder,it is classified as a class "B"low explosive powder compound(I believe).As long as it is possessed for sporting use in quantities not to exceed 50 pounds, it is legal for unlicensed individuals to own it,provided they are not ingaged in the sale or distribution or useing it for other than for sporting purposes ,such as blasting. .If they are, then they are required to have a license,federal explosives license.How a State chooses to define a firearm is up to the individual[url] state.In[/url] Texas,when it came time to define these terms they decided to use the Federal laws as a guideline,however they liberalized it somewhat.According to Federal law, a person ever covicted of a felony cannot possess a firearm(as opposed to a relic or curio) unless the disability has been removed,and since it is not currently funded by congress,it won't be.By Texas State law he may possess a firearm if a certain number of years have passed since his release from controlled supervision and he has not committed any further felonious acts and as long as he is on his own property or property under his direct control.As to BP guns,Texas is essentially word for word on the Federal statutes.So, a reformed,rehabilitated ex-convict,who shoots an intruder that is in the act of breaking into his house will most likely be no billed on State charges but could potentially face Federal prosecution.State law and Federal law don't necessarily cross but at times run parallel.I believe we as gun owners should not disseminate this information to the public for obvious reasons.Best regards ,Jack

 

[JackAubrey]

My appologies JR,outstanding job! I wish I had read further down the thread b4 posting! :master:

 

[pepperbelly]

Jack I don't want to disagree but it is classed as an antique, not a Curio and Relic. I have a C&RFFL. Garands, Mausers, etc. are C&R. Anything made before 1898 is an antique. Replicas are also classed as non firearms by the BATFE. Local laws may still class C&B revolvers as weapons, but they are not firearms as classed by the Feds.
Just trying to help,
Jim

 

[Light Dragoon]

Just as an addendum, we always maintained that if the anti-gun crowd got it's way, the next thing they would try to ban would be kitchen knives. Well, in England, they did, and they are.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Sad that gun owners are able to prophesy, but no one will believe them.

Cheers,

Gordon

 

[pepperbelly]

I dread the day they discover that they have neglected trying to ban bp firearms.
I think it's just that noone would be able to think of a flintlock as a threat if they have never seen the end result of one or a cap and ball revolver.
JIm

 

[bezoar]

Well in a way its good that very very few movies have bp weapons in them. Every movie seems to have a glock or a heavy machine gun in it. no wonder those kinds of guns are being banned as every little kid seems to know how to load, clean, assemble, and dissamble cartridge guns.

 

[pepperbelly]

I honestly believe most people get their ideas about guns from tv and the movies. They really think a pistol or rofle can shoot all afternoon without reloading and a .50BMG can shoot down an airplane.
I have enough trouble hitting a dove with a shotgun.
Jim

 

[gooddw]

Just watched (fir the third time) Quigley Down Under. Good movie for BP shooters. First time I've seen the 1851 Colt Marshal used in a movie.

 

[3 stinky dogs]

Way old post but I wanted to throw my bit in.I have lived in california,texas,iowa,illonois,tenneessee,florida.and missippie.My step dad was a sals man and later i was in the[url] navy.in[/url] ecry state i lived in i always get the hunting and fishing regs so i dont break any[url] laws.in[/url] evry case in the table of contense is usuley a section that tells you who can and cannot[url] hunt.in[/url] evry one i saw it was spacficley stated that any one convicted of a felony or miedomener domestic violance directed twords spouse or child is forbidden to hunt with firearms any fire arms bows or anything that launches a projectile.and recently here in texas when i baught my fishing license i saw a poster that sed if you were dilenquent in child support that your privlages were suspended.when i lived in ft.collins co. i used to hange out at a shop called Cache La podre rifle works and bs with the owner Mike Mcormick.He had told me that you dont fill out the yellow form because a Ml was considerd a non weapon.I dont beleave that men or woman who have made mistakes in the past should be baned from gun ownership.if someone is dangerous then they need to be in prison.but long and short of it if you are a fellon and you get caught with a ml chances are you will be arested for being in possetion of a firearm

 

[recycle33952]

here in florida as the way I interprate the law felons can only use bows to hunt. Although they are allowed possesion of pre 1898 antique arms and muzzleloading guns and replicas thereof they are not permited to own ammunition cartridges and even when a blackpowder firearm is loaded it is classified as a firearm. I was reading of a man prosecuted and convicted for a 50 cal muzzleloader for hunting with it being a felon he recieved 3 years in prison. It depends on the state where you live! I also read in somewhere in north carolina felons can own shotguns and rifles for hunting no less than 28". It is sad to see a shooting with a bp gun because every bump we shooters hit because of others brings out the liberal tree huggers with the wanting to disarm civillians from their second amendment right to bear arms. I do believe everyone has the right to bear arms even non violent felons who paid their debt to society. To me to restrict ones freedoms is to restrict everyones freedoms. I am hoping the muzzleloading sport will be available for my grand children and theirs as well and this forum is a great way to spread our insights and muzzleloading passions to younger generations. Sometimes people today lose sight of tradition and values. I think most of us share the idea of keeping tradition alive!

 

Why don't you try to get a pardon from the Texas Governor?

My son, in a case of serial stupidity, was caught growing 700 marijuana plants, in Washington State and hit the slammer. Ol' Dad didn't give him any sympathy, or support either. I wouldn't even get him a lawyer ...

He came out, lived ten blame free years, applied for a pardon, and the pardon was granted.

Growing Marijuana, for resale, is a stiffer beef than DUI ...

Bill

 

It seems that some of these laws are passed without the slighest idea of what they are enacting. Here in Oregon I have a concealed carry license. But that's only good for a firearm. If I carry a concealed hunting knife I become an instant felon. Someone please show me where there was an active brain cell figuring this one out.

The knife below with a 3 3/8 inch blade is illegal in California. (Assisted opening)

The "knife" below with a 10 inch blade is legal in California. :shake: :youcrazy:

Both of those knifes are legal to own in California. Where the dagger becomes illegal is when it is carried concealed in public ...

The assisted opening knife can be bought across the counter in most gun and knife shops ... I have bought several ...

If you live in California, you need to read the links, I have posted below, to get up to speed on California Knife Laws ...
[url] http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/knifelaw.html[/url]
[url] http://pw1.netcom.com/~brlevine/ca.txt[/url]

Bill

 

[jdixon]

Post #120665 that I posted back in May had in it all of the applicible Federal and Kentucky state statute information explaiing how this situation wasn't a violation of firearms possession laws in this case. I looked at the post just now, seems like half of it has been cut off - don't know what happened there. Yes, it would seem that inidividual states can make restrictions that are above those of the Federal statutes. Kentucky is pretty much a pro-gun state, our restrictions here are very limited in this area.