-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Law
- Thread starter ssbookyu
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
It depends on the state or country. Here the Federal Government does NOT consider a flintlock a firearm. However, many states do. Canada does not consider a flintlock a firearm, but a percussion gun is. Ask a lawyer in your State what the law is.
It isn't shipping that's the issue with the states; it's possession. He needs to find out if there are any restrictions on possession of a flintlock rifle in the state he's shipping to (presuming the state he's in and shipping from doesn't have such restrictions, since he's already there and possessing...).
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
Again, possession laws vary from state to state. If you are a convicted felon, in most states, you cannot possess a flintlock.( There are exceptions). One way or another, the only way he is going to get his questions answered is by talking to a lawyer in that jurisdiction. He does not give an address on his personal information page, so I can't hazard a guess as to what the law in his state might be. We do have a topic here on State regulations and laws, but again, without knowing what state he wants information on, how do we advise him?
I do not understand why people are so loathe to contact a lawyer in their own state, and county to get these answers. Every gun club, and gun store has a lawyer that represents it, and a question to the owners, or directors of the clubs and stores will get you a referral to a lawyer who is at least gun friendly. When I was in the courthouse, yesterday, one of the deputies asked me if he could send a guy to me who didn't seem to understand the laws of self defense, and the circumstances in which you can legally display a firearm to protect yourself or some other innocent. Both this deputy and the other deputy who was working the screening equipment at the courthouse entrance talked to me for a few minutes about the issue, and I finished noting that some officers were confused about the law of self defense since they work for a department where the Chief has decided he can better insulate himself from a lawsuit by drafting departmental regulations that are more stringent than state law in allowing his officers to employ deadly force.
IN fact, all that does is make it even more likely that the department and the chief will be sued because the higher standard makes it more likely that an officer will not totally comply with the regulations, giving a smart lawyer an opening for squeezing money out of the city for an undeserving client!I have made this comment to these Chiefs, when I run into them, and can talk about the subject, and the look on their faces is priceless! Instead of running their NEW regulations past a lawyer who has experience suing police departments, to find out whether the regulation is a good idea, they usually merely run it past the city attorney, and ask, Is what I wrote legal?" The answer to that question is usually, " Yes", but that is not really the question he should be asking. And, since City Attorney jobs are appointive, the attorneys will rarely stick their necks out by telling their civil leaders that what they are proposing in their regulations is ill-advised, and counter productive.
Most city attorneys are NOT shooters, and have no clue about gun laws. They also don't bother to learn. So, you have the blind, advising the blind, and bumps and bruises are inevitable.
I don't practice law that way. When I represented our County's Housing Authority for 15 years, I had no hesitation in telling the Director, or the Board members when they were doing something that would create more problems than it would solve. I have always thought it was my professional obligation to my client to counsel him, even when what I tell him may not be what he wants to hear. What I have become famous for, however, is finding better ways to use the law as a tool to accomplish the goals my clients want to achieve. I once had to advise my board that a proposal one board member was making would violate the civil rights of the Tenants. But, then, I added, that there was another way to accomplish what he wanted to do, without violating their civil rights, and I would be happy to work with him and come back to the board with a new proposal at the next meeting. They all smiled, and even laughed, and even the board member came over to me during a break, and thanked me for stopping him from making a huge mistake. When I told him how we could do the same thing he wanted to do without violating anyone's civil rights, he thought for a moment, and said, with a big smile, " I like That!". The next meeting, He made a " modified " motion, and it was passed unanimously.
When looking for a local attorney who might know something about guns and gun laws, ASK the lawyer if he is a shooter, and if he has done any research into gun laws! If not, ask him to refer you to another lawyer who has.
I get calls all the time from other lawyers here about gun laws, because I am well known to be knowledgeable about gun laws. They often want to send me a client, but before I agree to take the client on , I ask the nature of the question. Often, its a short answer, and I can simply tell the lawyer calling me how to answer the question correctly. He keeps the client, bills some time for the phone call, the client is happy, and I have kept a good friendship with another lawyer. He will be there when I need the favor returned for my clients.
I do not understand why people are so loathe to contact a lawyer in their own state, and county to get these answers. Every gun club, and gun store has a lawyer that represents it, and a question to the owners, or directors of the clubs and stores will get you a referral to a lawyer who is at least gun friendly. When I was in the courthouse, yesterday, one of the deputies asked me if he could send a guy to me who didn't seem to understand the laws of self defense, and the circumstances in which you can legally display a firearm to protect yourself or some other innocent. Both this deputy and the other deputy who was working the screening equipment at the courthouse entrance talked to me for a few minutes about the issue, and I finished noting that some officers were confused about the law of self defense since they work for a department where the Chief has decided he can better insulate himself from a lawsuit by drafting departmental regulations that are more stringent than state law in allowing his officers to employ deadly force.
IN fact, all that does is make it even more likely that the department and the chief will be sued because the higher standard makes it more likely that an officer will not totally comply with the regulations, giving a smart lawyer an opening for squeezing money out of the city for an undeserving client!I have made this comment to these Chiefs, when I run into them, and can talk about the subject, and the look on their faces is priceless! Instead of running their NEW regulations past a lawyer who has experience suing police departments, to find out whether the regulation is a good idea, they usually merely run it past the city attorney, and ask, Is what I wrote legal?" The answer to that question is usually, " Yes", but that is not really the question he should be asking. And, since City Attorney jobs are appointive, the attorneys will rarely stick their necks out by telling their civil leaders that what they are proposing in their regulations is ill-advised, and counter productive.
Most city attorneys are NOT shooters, and have no clue about gun laws. They also don't bother to learn. So, you have the blind, advising the blind, and bumps and bruises are inevitable.
I don't practice law that way. When I represented our County's Housing Authority for 15 years, I had no hesitation in telling the Director, or the Board members when they were doing something that would create more problems than it would solve. I have always thought it was my professional obligation to my client to counsel him, even when what I tell him may not be what he wants to hear. What I have become famous for, however, is finding better ways to use the law as a tool to accomplish the goals my clients want to achieve. I once had to advise my board that a proposal one board member was making would violate the civil rights of the Tenants. But, then, I added, that there was another way to accomplish what he wanted to do, without violating their civil rights, and I would be happy to work with him and come back to the board with a new proposal at the next meeting. They all smiled, and even laughed, and even the board member came over to me during a break, and thanked me for stopping him from making a huge mistake. When I told him how we could do the same thing he wanted to do without violating anyone's civil rights, he thought for a moment, and said, with a big smile, " I like That!". The next meeting, He made a " modified " motion, and it was passed unanimously.
When looking for a local attorney who might know something about guns and gun laws, ASK the lawyer if he is a shooter, and if he has done any research into gun laws! If not, ask him to refer you to another lawyer who has.
I get calls all the time from other lawyers here about gun laws, because I am well known to be knowledgeable about gun laws. They often want to send me a client, but before I agree to take the client on , I ask the nature of the question. Often, its a short answer, and I can simply tell the lawyer calling me how to answer the question correctly. He keeps the client, bills some time for the phone call, the client is happy, and I have kept a good friendship with another lawyer. He will be there when I need the favor returned for my clients.
DOUBLEDEUCE 1
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,165
- Reaction score
- 877
As has been said, call an attorney. The ones who would know a whole lot more, and would be able to give the best answer would be your local District Attorney's office. If you think about it, they would be the ones to prosecute you if there was a problem. They would be the ones to go to. You could ask several questions, and get the right answers (or should get the correct answers). The best thing is you can do it all for free. If there is a problem with the DA's Office, call the local law enforcement. They all work from the same penal code. Nobody should give you any grief for asking. :hmm:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
DD: I will politely disagree with your assessment of the knowledge of DA, or States attorneys when it comes to gun laws. Law enforcement officials are the last people I would send folks to talk to about gun laws. They rarely even know of new laws on the books, much less what they mean!
Sometimes, the prosecutors know about new laws, but most are not shooters, have no interest in learning or knowing how to advise people how to use deadly force for self defense, and, MOST OF ALL, do not routinely give out legal advice, for fear that it will come back to haunt them if you are arrested after following their advice! Now, don't get me wrong: I have many friends in law enforcement, and know the prosecutors, generally, who do shoot. Prosecutors as a group are fine, honorable men and women, dedicated to their jobs. They are rarely paid enough for the work they do.
But, THEY ARE NOT RECREATIONAL SHOOTERS AND HUNTERS, for the most part( better in rural areas, but terrible in big city offices), and they just don't know gun laws from the perspective of advising people how to use them in self defense. That is special training that is NOT taught in law schools. You can get better information off the internet on sites like the United States Concealed Carry Association.
:hatsoff:
Sometimes, the prosecutors know about new laws, but most are not shooters, have no interest in learning or knowing how to advise people how to use deadly force for self defense, and, MOST OF ALL, do not routinely give out legal advice, for fear that it will come back to haunt them if you are arrested after following their advice! Now, don't get me wrong: I have many friends in law enforcement, and know the prosecutors, generally, who do shoot. Prosecutors as a group are fine, honorable men and women, dedicated to their jobs. They are rarely paid enough for the work they do.
But, THEY ARE NOT RECREATIONAL SHOOTERS AND HUNTERS, for the most part( better in rural areas, but terrible in big city offices), and they just don't know gun laws from the perspective of advising people how to use them in self defense. That is special training that is NOT taught in law schools. You can get better information off the internet on sites like the United States Concealed Carry Association.
:hatsoff:
DD1 beat me to it, I was just going to suggest going to the County or City DA. They SHOULD know the answer. Regarding shipping (assuming it is legal to receive the flintlock), there are no restrictions as the BAFTE says that muzzleloaders are "non guns" so you can send them through the mail.
Here's what TX Parks and Wildlife says about the subject in their regulations.
"Possession of firearms by felons: A convicted felon, regardless of where the conviction occurred, may not possess or use a firearm (as defined by Penal Code, §46.01) to hunt in this state. Under Penal Code, §46.01, a muzzleloading firearm is lawful if it is an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 or a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 that does not use rimfire or centerfire ammunition."
"Possession of firearms by felons: A convicted felon, regardless of where the conviction occurred, may not possess or use a firearm (as defined by Penal Code, §46.01) to hunt in this state. Under Penal Code, §46.01, a muzzleloading firearm is lawful if it is an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 or a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899 that does not use rimfire or centerfire ammunition."
ssbookyu said:
If you are not 100% at ease with shipping a flintlock, take it apart and ship it in two or more separate packages. Then it is just "gun parts" and not a complete weapon system, there is no law that I know of about shipping parts.
Package #1: Lock
Package #2: Barrel and ramrod
Package #3: The rest of the gun
Not a lawyer - but my guess is that if it is a traditional type rifle - flint, percussion, matchlock or such (but not an in line) it would be fine - I would also think a synthetic stock would be a no-no too.
Since, I am not a felon and have no real intention of becoming one - this falls under for information only.
Since, I am not a felon and have no real intention of becoming one - this falls under for information only.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,366
- Reaction score
- 188
KHickam said:
With the Caligula-like expansion of laws these days, I wouldn't count on that. There are so many laws of such complexity, and climbing, that we're nearly all law breakers now.
And ain't that just convenient for the powers that be?
I would suggest posing your question concerning the shipment of a flintlock muzzleloader to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms for exact interpretation. http://www.atf.gov
Regarding the mailing of a firearm, primitive or modern type, through the mail system or a delivery service in piecemeal fashion would create a definite liability issue in Tort Law. It would be fairly easy to establish Negligence and Causation by the sending party in the event injury, damage or harm resulted to the recipient.
Classic example: If one party provides another party a container of gas and also provides a book of matches in a separate or same transaction, with the intent and knowledge that the other party can or will use them in unison, then any resultant injury, damage or harm becomes the liability of the original party.
In your example, in the event such a gun transaction that was mailed or provided in pieces resulted in harm or damage were to be litigated, the Jury isn’t going to know the nuances between a flint lock muzzleloader from that of an assault rifle - other than, that both are classified as a firearm. The Prosecution would need only to establish how said firearm arrived from point A to point B.
An easy way to avoid this scenario would be to use the Transfer services of a FFL dealer. Several online sites provide a State specific network of FFL dealers. These individuals are Federally and Locally licensed to receive and transfer firearms from sellers to buyers.
The FFL Transfer fee of $30 - $50 is well worth the elimination of personal risk and liability in any firearm transaction.
Regarding the mailing of a firearm, primitive or modern type, through the mail system or a delivery service in piecemeal fashion would create a definite liability issue in Tort Law. It would be fairly easy to establish Negligence and Causation by the sending party in the event injury, damage or harm resulted to the recipient.
Classic example: If one party provides another party a container of gas and also provides a book of matches in a separate or same transaction, with the intent and knowledge that the other party can or will use them in unison, then any resultant injury, damage or harm becomes the liability of the original party.
In your example, in the event such a gun transaction that was mailed or provided in pieces resulted in harm or damage were to be litigated, the Jury isn’t going to know the nuances between a flint lock muzzleloader from that of an assault rifle - other than, that both are classified as a firearm. The Prosecution would need only to establish how said firearm arrived from point A to point B.
An easy way to avoid this scenario would be to use the Transfer services of a FFL dealer. Several online sites provide a State specific network of FFL dealers. These individuals are Federally and Locally licensed to receive and transfer firearms from sellers to buyers.
The FFL Transfer fee of $30 - $50 is well worth the elimination of personal risk and liability in any firearm transaction.
cowpoke1955
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 2,090
- Reaction score
- 6
I can save you all the trouble.....ship it to me! It's legal here :rotf: I'm not a felon, but as a retired cop, I've has a lot of dealings with them :haha:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
WADR, you are wrong. Leave it at that. Most of these offenses require proof of specific knowledge or intent, and not mere negligence. In civil litigation, the innocent construction doctrine, in one form or another, still protects the Defendant.
Having said that, I don't believe that simply using an FFL protects the shipper from anything. If the government can still prove knowing intent to supply a firearm to someone who is not legally qualified to own it, he can be prosecuted. The FFL may also be prosecuted, if he fails to follow the rules imposed on him, but it would not be the first time an FFL was given a wrong name, middle initial, or date of birth to conceal the real identify of the buyer from him, and the original seller. Criminals don't hesitate to give false information when they are booked in County, and City jails. Why would they fear giving that information to a distant seller, or an FFL?
The whole idea that the government can keep guns out of the hands of bad guys is just silly, no matter how elaborate a system they employ.
With all these laws, law abiding shooters are inconvenienced, and we are even less safe than we were 50 years ago, when you could buy guns through the mail no questions asked, or a kid could walk into a local gun store and buy ammo and guns with out his parent's consent.
We live in a time of NANNY STATE, where our politicians are all " slick Willies", willing to tell us anything to make us feel good, even if what they are doing actually makes us less safe. Its obviously from your post that our wonderful professors at law schools have been busy filling your heads with more mush, without a clue what they are talking about. Nothing has change in the past 36 years in that regard.
Having said that, I don't believe that simply using an FFL protects the shipper from anything. If the government can still prove knowing intent to supply a firearm to someone who is not legally qualified to own it, he can be prosecuted. The FFL may also be prosecuted, if he fails to follow the rules imposed on him, but it would not be the first time an FFL was given a wrong name, middle initial, or date of birth to conceal the real identify of the buyer from him, and the original seller. Criminals don't hesitate to give false information when they are booked in County, and City jails. Why would they fear giving that information to a distant seller, or an FFL?
The whole idea that the government can keep guns out of the hands of bad guys is just silly, no matter how elaborate a system they employ.
With all these laws, law abiding shooters are inconvenienced, and we are even less safe than we were 50 years ago, when you could buy guns through the mail no questions asked, or a kid could walk into a local gun store and buy ammo and guns with out his parent's consent.
We live in a time of NANNY STATE, where our politicians are all " slick Willies", willing to tell us anything to make us feel good, even if what they are doing actually makes us less safe. Its obviously from your post that our wonderful professors at law schools have been busy filling your heads with more mush, without a clue what they are talking about. Nothing has change in the past 36 years in that regard.
Since mention has been made concerning individuals knowledgeable about state law, I would like to ask Paul Vallandigham, to give us a status of the state park and historical sites closing.
Last year, we were told that Fort de Chartres near Prairie du Rocher in Randolph County, Illinois will be shut down permanently on October 1, 2008, by the State of Illinois due to lack of funding. Many of us have for years enjoyed the rendezvous at Fort de Chartres on the east bank of the Mississippi. Mr. Vallandigham, will you give us a status of the state park closing?
Thanks,
Bill Fleming
Jerseyville, Il.
Last year, we were told that Fort de Chartres near Prairie du Rocher in Randolph County, Illinois will be shut down permanently on October 1, 2008, by the State of Illinois due to lack of funding. Many of us have for years enjoyed the rendezvous at Fort de Chartres on the east bank of the Mississippi. Mr. Vallandigham, will you give us a status of the state park closing?
Thanks,
Bill Fleming
Jerseyville, Il.
DOUBLEDEUCE 1
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,165
- Reaction score
- 877
I have to agree with Paul hands down. The gas and matchbook example is a stretch. How many times has someone gone to the gas station for a gallon of fuel (for his lawnmower), and purchased a pack of cigarettes with matches? Where and what is the intent?
As far as shipping the flintlock, check the rules for the shipping company. We have all gotten conflicting answers from UPS, Fed Ex and US Mail when it comes to shipping certain items.
Another source for information regarding the possession of the flintlock... if you're on parole or probation, check with your parole or probation officer.
As far as shipping the flintlock, check the rules for the shipping company. We have all gotten conflicting answers from UPS, Fed Ex and US Mail when it comes to shipping certain items.
Another source for information regarding the possession of the flintlock... if you're on parole or probation, check with your parole or probation officer.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
See my PT to you.
blackpowder shooter
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2003
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 1
In New York State there was no problem in shipping a percussion rifle through UPS. At first they refused to ship the gun stating I had to have an FFL. I asked for a supervisor and informed him that under the gun laws passed in 1968, Muzzleloaders original or reproduction where excluded from the FFL requirement. The supervisor called the regional office and confirmed the exclution. I would think that you could ship the barrel and stock separately and not run into any problems. An interesting problem that I ran into is that the UPS insurance does not cover firearms if the are not shipped in a UPS approved case.
Similar threads
