Yes, but the point was: if (excuse clumsiness) a phone store advertises “smart phones (like Android), feature phones, and iPhones,” they are perfectly allowed to. But just because they or Apple insist that the iPhone is in a separate category from smart phones for advertising purposes does not make it true. They both make calls and can access the internet, and the majority of 9mm and .45 pistols fire one round per trigger pull, no matter what nomenclature the government normally used. So you can insist on calling it an automatic, but that doesn’t mean that a website should sell it in a different section from other pistols.
Are you looking for historical accuracy or modern convenience. Surely technology has progressed since 100 years ago. I would think you could package a charge of powder in a sealed plastic pouch so it could be insulated against hydrophilic and acid-generating tendencies, sealed and stable long term, yet thin enough skin that a cap would set it off.
Of course, if the laws for powder replica guns are the same as regular guns, all this is irrelevant.
You’re fighting a century of tradition. In any case, this thread is about black powder firearms.
Here’s the reply I’ve just received from DoL:
Did anyone else notice there seems to be a discrepancy between the DoL respondent and the text of RCW 9.41.010 (1)? Black powder pistols are treated the same as modern ones and require the same paperwork (and waiting period) as modern ones – unless they are ‘antiques’. But the RCW 9.41.010 (1) definition of ‘antique’ includes replicas. Take a typical BP revolver. Fixed ammunition? No. Pre-1898? Yes. Fixed ammunition not readily available? Does not apply. So by definition, a replica Colt or Remington muzzleloader is an ‘antique’ and should not be regulated as a modern firearm. Only according to the DoL respondent, they are. Here are a couple more emails:
When I pointed out to her that replicas meet the definition in RCW 9.41.010(1), she replied:
I have asked for further clarification. The State of Washington may be reading the section as requiring replicas themselves to have actually been made prior to 1898, instead of merely requiring that replicas be replicas of firearms made prior to that date. If that’s the case, then why mention replicas at all? Because any ‘replica’ (read: ‘counterfeit’) made before 1898 is an antique. Personally, I’m not willing to become a test case.
I’ll post any replies I receive.
I noticed that too.
In my state, my modern replica of an 1851 Navy revolver does not count as a “handgun” because it is a cap and ball type. If the design was modified to shoot cartridges, then it would require handgun paperwork and all of that.
RCW 9.41.010 (1) seems to make a similar distinction.
It seems that Washington’s DoL is in the habit of telling people that they need the paperwork even though the law says that they don’t. See this thread on another forum, for example:
Here is the final word I’ve received:
So they don’t seem to know.
Interesting. I’m going to post the DoL letter here from your link.
The last time I purchased a black powder revolver was before 26 Jan 2010. Looks like there may have been some clarification in the meantime.
(Bolding mine) Unless someone’s started making modern reproductions that I don’t know about (or you’ve got a rechambered rifle), the Martini-Henry was not chambered for .45-70; but rather the .577/450 cartridge. Ballistically the two cartridges are very similar from what I understand, though.
British designation for a number of self-loading handguns (at least back in the day) describes them as “Automatics” too - the term refers to the idea they automatically reload themselves. To be fair, the official designation for semi-auto handguns during WWI at least was “Pistol, Self-Loading”, but the contemporary ads I’ve seen for the guns describe them as “Automatics”.
Oh, yeah…
I was sent a copy of Mr. Tanaka’s letter. It’s the same one posted earlier by Daylate. The thing is, it merely uses the definition of ‘antique’ that is in RCW 9.41.010 (1), which I pointed out in post #24 was a little ambiguous.
I’d also be worried about percussion caps falling off especially if you’re trying to rush.
Like most laws, this varies by location, you can’t make a flat pronouncement like this.
In my experience, it’s not generally true either. The most basic definition of burglary is unlawfully entering a dwelling/residence to commit a crime. Under the US UCMJ, entering unlawfully into an unoccupied residence, during the day, is only housebreaking.
Robbery is generally larceny done by means of assault of a person, so if you are in someone’s house, and threaten or attack them in order to steal stuff, that would add on robbery, but wouldn’t change the original offense of burglary. And if someone is home but you never see them while there, robbery wouldn’t come into it at all.
Your right - never thought of that in my original message, but the rifle was rechambered for .45-70
I’d be very careful firing modern commercial ammo through it all the same - the Martini action is incredibly strong but I don’t think it’d handle .45-70 nitro (smokeless powder) loads well. The .577/450 round was a black powder cartridge, and while I believe modern nitro .45/70 rounds are deliberately down-loaded to be about the same as their historic blackpowder counterparts, it’s still something I’d be mindful of.
If you have a look on the right hand side of your Martini-Henry, you’ll see markings which tell you when and where it was made, along with the Mark of rifle (I-IV)too.
.45 ACP = Automatic Combat Pistol or Automatic Colt Pistol, depending on who you ask. It describes the round, as opposed to the .45 LC (Long Colt) or .45 GAP (Glock Automatic Pistol), not the action of the gun.
It’s just a name.
Yeah, that was my point.