Your Opinion on Unlicensed Carry?

[Kutnupe14]

Um... on this.

I'm all for you carrying, and especially in a legal way.

But... haven't you only switched one regulation for another?

I'd be interested to hear your take on this. I doubt most LE will be familiar with the code or antique firearms. Obviously you can prove that you are legal, but there may be a bit of grief behind it.

 

[cosermann]

Roundball ...

Well just be aware that you're running with approx. 380 acp ballistics with the round balls (80-ish grains at about 1,000 fps). Round ball can behave interestingly, depending on how soft the lead is, but it's not much for 2-3 attackers as you suggest (maybe enough for 1 at my comfort level).

If that's all I could use I'd want to carry a pair and would reload regularly depending on the weather. Sling 1 under each arm. That would be neat!

Colt 1851 Navy Revolver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jbombelli]

Seems to be legal from the IC posted above. But I wouldn't trust the police to know it. Expect some grief and expense if you're caught with it. I doubt they'll pay any attention whatsoever to your printouts of the IC.

 

[rbrthenderson]

I also do not see a circumstance where I would be confronted with more than 2-3 BGs under normal circumstances and feel that the Fire/Smoke/Boom and their buddy dropping would be sufficint to dissuade the remaining ones.

You hope that it dissuades them, but what if it doesn't. I carry 15 rounds but I don't plan on using them. That doesn't mean that I won't need to though.

As always though, just my opinion...

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I'd be interested to hear your take on this. I doubt most LE will be familiar with the code or antique firearms. Obviously you can prove that you are legal, but there may be a bit of grief behind it.

I second this...

The likelihood that the average LEO will be aware that sootburners are unregulated is pretty close to zero. Make sure you have copies of the pertinent laws on you at all times.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

O.K., jury is back and it looks like Mr. Andrew Gibbs had an older, non-functioning Smith .38 (which was held to be a handgun):

https://www.lexisone.com/lx1/casela...=egac.jOba.aadj.ebGH&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

 

[Kirk Freeman]

My concern would be if an individual who was SVF did this and thought they were complying with the law.

I would be concerned about possible hassle detention by law enforcement.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I think it is a novel approach. Having said that, LE and the courts are not known for their appreciation of novelty.

I admire your sense of style, regardless.

 

[techres]

Was the handgun in Gibbs a cartridge pistol or blackpowder???*


*waiting for jury and too lazy to check.

http://www.rucklaw.com/PDFs/ANTIQUEHANDGUNS.pdf

"Therefore, regardless of the handgun’s age, if it was designed to expel a projectile by means of an explosion, then it constitutes a firearm according to Indiana law."

I.E. it does not matter what makes it go boom, or what it launches, it is a firearm according to indiana case law.

To be frank, it probably bodes badly for you iffin you get the wrong LEO. I would love to see you make the challenge, but it likely won't be a cheap process.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think it is a novel approach. Having said that, LE and the courts are not known for their appreciation of novelty.

I admire your sense of style, regardless.

He certainly gets points for style, now if we could get him to wear a CSA slouch cap, he'd be A-ok

 

[esrice]

First, welcome to INGO, and thanks for bringing this unique circumstance to light here on the forum. I think many gun owners are unaware of this exemption under which you carry.

However, legal as it may be, I tend to share the opinion of the INGOer below.

I think limiting your ability to defend yourself, by choosing an inferior weapon by modern standards, as a form of political protest is silly.

I too believe that a license requirement is an infringement upon our rights. But carrying an older, less-effective weapon doesn't make it any less of an infringement.

If your goal is purely one of political protest, then carrying your current revolver makes sense.

But if your goal one of self defense, then avail yourself of what modern firearms have to offer, regardless of what [unconstitutional] hoops the State makes you jump through.

Just my . Again, glad to have you here.

 

[CarmelHP]

http://www.rucklaw.com/PDFs/ANTIQUEHANDGUNS.pdf

"Therefore, regardless of the handgun’s age, if it was designed to expel a projectile by means of an explosion, then it constitutes a firearm according to Indiana law."

I.E. it does not matter what makes it go boom, or what it launches, it is a firearm according to indiana case law.

To be frank, it probably bodes badly for you iffin you get the wrong LEO. I would love to see you make the challenge, but it likely won't be a cheap process.

Except, there was no contention that it met the exception. 75 years prior to Gibbs' arrest in 2000 was not before 1899 and it was a cartridge revolver. The law does not say that firearms manufactured prior to 1899 or blackpowder firearms are not firearms, but that the requirements of the carry license law do not apply to those firearms. So, yes, firearms that are not excepted, can serve as the basis of such a charge. The defense was that it was inoperable, not that it met the statutory exception. Remember, this was a reversal of a Motion to Dismiss so only whether the State met the elements was considered. The charge was subsequently dismissed on prosecutor motion in 2003. Mr. Gibbs seems to have a history of petty offenses in Connersville according to Doxpop.

 

[PatriotPride]

Except, there was no contention that it met the exception. 75 years prior to Gibbs' arrest in 2001 was not before 1899 and it was a cartridge revolver. The law does not say that firearms manufactured prior to 1899 or blackpowder firearms are not firearms, but that the requirements of the carry license law do not apply to those firearms. So, yes, firearms that are not excepted, can serve as the basis of such a charge. The defense was that it was inoperable, not that it met the statutory exception.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Kurr]

http://www.rucklaw.com/PDFs/ANTIQUEHANDGUNS.pdf

"Therefore, regardless of the handgun’s age, if it was designed to expel a projectile by means of an explosion, then it constitutes a firearm according to Indiana law."

I.E. it does not matter what makes it go boom, or what it launches, it is a firearm according to indiana case law.

To be frank, it probably bodes badly for you iffin you get the wrong LEO. I would love to see you make the challenge, but it likely won't be a cheap process.

No arguing there brother, but for what it's worth a shotgun or rifle is also a firearm, but neither they nor mine are governered by the IC regarding "handguns" or need a LTCH.

As for trading one regulation for another, no I do not feel that is what I am doing at all. If I wanted to carry my modern, I would apply for LTCH and if appoved do so legally. But in doing so, I would be voluntarily submitting my self to regulation. The IC specifically states what I carry is exempt from the the chapter entitled Regulation of Handguns.

No slouch hat here, but I do wear a minnetoka buffalo nickel outback leather brimmed that is rather distictive

And I could "what if" myself into dual SMGs with a stout machete for zombie attacks, but in reality in 38 years I have never been attacked without reason or mugged yet. Never actually needed a firearm to defend myself at all. I do appreciate the concern and reasoning though.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Believe me, new friend, if you undergo a mugging you'll take a blackpowder revolver over a pair of running shoes (which I put to good use).

 

[Kurr]

Yup yup yup!

I just do not see myself getting swarmed around here by 5 or more people, and once the smoke show starts, who is to say how many I would have on me?

Most BG's attack thinking/hoping they have a completely un-armed target, no?

 

[Jake46184]

I don't see the need to "rock the boat." Indiana has among the most favorable, common-sense gun laws in the nation. Not getting a lifetime carry permit just seems to be looking for a fight. Perhaps a dose of maturity is in order.

 

[Kurr]

... I likes what I likes.

And I do like em! Once thatsmoke gets in your blood.....

 

[lashicoN]

I don't see the need to "rock the boat." Indiana has among the most favorable, common-sense gun laws in the nation. Not getting a lifetime carry permit just seems to be looking for a fight. Perhaps a dose of maturity is in order.

Rock the boat? Are you kidding me? Since when is following the law, "rocking the boat"? A license to carry a handgun is not a common sense law. It is an unreasonable restriction on citizens that have the right to defend themselves without the government infringing on that right.

"Rocking the boat" would be him carrying a modern firearm, without the license to carry, and hope to get caught so he could challenge the unconstitutional license to carry law in Indiana, and he would still have my full support. Forcing Americans to get their fingerprints put into a State database, that until recently was public record (I have a disc of everyone in IN who has a LTCH up until like a year ago, anyone else could have that list as well and do nefarious things with it) and to get approval by the state to exercise a right sounds like the state was looking for a fight. Maybe they (and anyone else who doesn't understand our Rights) need to mature to the point of learning how to read our Constitution - State and Federal.

 

[PatriotPride]

Rock the boat? Are you kidding me? Since when is following the law, "rocking the boat"? A license to carry a handgun is not a common sense law. It is an unreasonable restriction on citizens that have the right to defend themselves without the government infringing on that right.

"Rocking the boat" would be him carrying a modern firearm, without the license to carry, and hope to get caught so he could challenge the unconstitutional license to carry law in Indiana, and he would still have my full support. Forcing Americans to get their fingerprints put into a State database, that until recently was public record (I have a disc of everyone in IN who has a LTCH up until like a year ago, anyone else could have that list as well and do nefarious things with it) and to get approval by the state to exercise a right sounds like the state was looking for a fight. Maybe they (and anyone else who doesn't understand our Rights) need to mature to the point of learning how to read our Constitution - State and Federal.

Spot on.