concealed carry black powder?

D

Daves-got-guns

New member
i have a few questions of using a black powder revolver for concealed carry. Since you only have to be 18 to buy a black powder revolver, and you do not need a ffl, in Wa state, or any state for that matter is it legal to carry a bp revolver with no permit? and also is it legal if you are underage? i have always wanted to know that one...
 
No.

Sorry man, but no. I had the same idea when I was 18. I think most everyone does:D
I'm pretty sure in WA State once it is carried loaded and concealed, it is considered a concealed weapon, and would require a permit. Best bet would be to talk to the permit issuing/regulating authority or senior LEO in your area. For Tacoma-Peirce County, it's the Law Enforcement Support Agency,
2nd floor, Peirce County Courthouse in Tacoma.

Not sure for your area, your local county clerk could tell you.
 
ahh thanx .38 special! i live in marysville, and while crime isnt bad here i do live near SOME shady charactors. Also i spend some time in everett, and i know several people who have had crimes committed against them in everett and was just considering something of this nature. Thanx again
 
Washington statutes define a firearm as "a weapon or device from which a provectile or projectiles may be fired by an explosive such as gunpowder"
RWC 9.41.010(1)

"Pistol" is a firearm with a barrel less than 16" in length, or is designed to be held and fired with a single hand.
RWC 9.41.010(2)

Black powder firearms are a special class of "Antique" firearms, but still firearms.
RCW9.41.010(8)

Also see definition of "Loaded". RWC 9.41.010(9)(e)

Concealed pistol permits are only avaiable to those of 21 yrs old and older. RWC 9.41.070(1)(c)
 
Good info.

Thanks deadin,

Great info and thanks for the sources.

Daves-got-guns,

Like all others with carry questions, I'll direct you to www.packing.org.
While it is not the final answer, it is a great start.

Heard Marysville is very nice,BTW. Gotta beat Lakewood/Tacoma. What a craphole. That's why I'm moving to DuPont when I get back, baby:D
 
I doubt it.

I really don't think so. Again, check your own state at www.packing.org, but i think that most states (at least the ones I've researched/been to) have a similar definition as Washington (see deadin's post above) regarding firearms.

EDIT: Sorry, just saw you said "buy". I had carry on the brain. Oops. You would have to check state laws there, or ask a clerk at your gun/outdoors store. Most places you can, just double check.

Sorry for the mix up.
 
Last edited:
Currently working two cases where subjects were carrying loaded cap and ball revolvers concealed under the delusion they were legal. Both have been charged with VUFA charges and carrying without a permit concealed. :eek:
 
I'm not interested in carrying the BP pistol. I was just looking to have one at home. That way I wouldn't have to worry about the overpenetration of one of my rifles.:)
 
Currently working two cases where subjects were carrying loaded cap and ball revolvers concealed under the delusion they were legal. Both have been charged with VUFA charges and carrying without a permit concealed
Click to expand...

Sulaco:

I have a question. How about presenting the defense that your clients were under the understanding that the 2nd Amendment WAS a permit, and since Article VI says what it says, that the law was invalid according to Article VI and the 2nd Amendment?

How long you reckon the guys would get?
 
Hey Marloboroughman:
I have a question:
You wrote
Not saying I don't somewhat agree with your rhetoric, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Click to expand...

First, I am not providing any rhetoric, I was simply referring to the 2nd Amendment, and the fact that Articel VI says what it says.

I am not suggesting claiming ignorance of the law. Not at all. I am suggesting claiming knowledge of the law.

Quite respectfully, I think you got it backwards.

Article VI, which was ratified in 1789, says all states are bound by the Constitution, and that any law not "in pursuance" of it is pretty much moot.
And since the Bill of Rights is but a portion of the Constitution, and Article VI says all of the Constituion is SUPREME LAW, I was suggesting that the defense be (since the Constitution is a defense against unconstitutional laws) that the ACTUAL LAW says they can carry any arm they want.

Then they can appeal it all the way to the Supremes, and get them to say Article VI is not constitutional?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top