Out of curiosity, what case(s) are you referring to?Well you go beat on the Texass legislature. The courts interpret the word antique and curio to mean guns that aren't being fired.
You can argue what you want, but you'll not win this one in a Texas court.
This is exactly what the poster is asking.What is the name of your state? TEXAS
Can a felon legally own black powder for a muzzle loading antique gun?
I do not see how propellant powder designed for use in any firearm excludes black powder or includes only nitro based powders.(17)
(A) The term “ammunition” means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder designed for use in any firearm.
You are confusing limits to BATFE regulatory authority with legal permission. Federal explosive violations do not begin a 50 pounds, simply because lawful transactions under 50 lbs are not subject to review and reporting. Nothing about the fact that a ATF form need not be filed makes it legal for a felon to posses explosives.Additionally, the laws regarding explosives are specific and don't encompass gunpowder.
My post was more a comment on the importance of you posting the case law you touted after I had asked about it. I had hoped you would provide a citation, but it wasn't imperative to the OP's question. I wasn't intending to attack your assumptions about the OP's gun possession status.This is exactly what the poster is asking.
FOR a muzzle loading gun.
Now I suppose he wants to own powder for a gun, but not own the gun, but that would be at best a very obtuse way of interpreting the question.
Here is my logic based upon the definitions in the USC:I do not see how propellant powder designed for use in any firearm excludes black powder or includes only nitro based powders.
I'm not confusing anything...I just didn't see anything applicable. Please cite the explosives law that encompasses black powder. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I just didn't see it. I am open to being corrected. If I find something in a quick search of case law, I'll post it back here.You are confusing limits to BATFE regulatory authority with legal permission. Federal explosive violations do not begin a 50 pounds, simply because lawful transactions under 50 lbs are not subject to review and reporting. Nothing about the fact that a ATF form need not be filed makes it legal for a felon to posses explosives.
One does not generally use the same type/size of powder for muzzle loaders in even ammunition reloads.If black powder is ordinarily used in non-muzzle loading guns, then my conclusion is not correct.
I know what case you are talking about. It's. Vaughn v. State, 600 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.Cr.App., 1980.)Well you go beat on the Texass legislature. The courts interpret the word antique and curio to mean guns that aren't being fired.
You can argue what you want, but you'll not win this one in a Texas court.
But I don't think it really matters according to what the poster is asking. All this really says is that an antique weapon can still qualify as a per se deadly weapon when seeking a deadly weapon finding in an assaultive offense. It's not like you can be charged with possession of a firearm by felon because you used an antique weapon, even in a direct assault of someone. You absolutely cannot, because for any possession case, the definition of firearm expressly exempts qualified antiques/replicas. But if you shoot an antique weapon at someone, whether you are a convicted felon or not, you can be convicted of agg. assault with a deadly weapon. You can actually always get a deadly weapon finding for ANYTHING as long as it was used as a deadly weapon (ex: pencil, towel, pillow, hand, fist, etc..) But under the deadly weapon definition a firearm is per se a deadly weapon (its the only per se deadly weapon.) So if you used an antique weapon to commit an assault, an antique gun WOULD qualify as a firearm, and therefore would be a per se deadly weapon. I think my point is that none of this has anything to do with the actor being a felon, and its irrelevant to any possession charge.The statutory provision excepting antique firearms from the definition of "deadly weapon" pertains only to weapons possession offenses, not to assaultive offenses.
I'll have to disagree with you there. The pertinent part of the federal law states:As far as the Feds, they have no jurisdiction if you are just keeping the gun and/or the powder in your home. It is not being transported interstate and it does not affect interstate commerce.
Their ruling was based on the fact that Raich was growing the marijuana for personal use (which the courts decided can be interpreted as commerce) thus affecting the interstate commerce of marijuana.Also, after the Supreme Court's marijuana case in 2005, I'm not even confident that the law wouldn't apply if the ammunition/gun were completely indigenous to Texas.
I'm not following your argument. Can you elaborate?Their ruling was based on the fact that Raich was growing the marijuana for personal use (which the courts decided can be interpreted as commerce) thus affecting the interstate commerce of marijuana.
If he already owns the gun then it might not be considered as affecting commerce.
Even though marijuana is illegal there is commerce of it. Growing your own means you don't have to buy it from the market hence lowering demand and affecting commerce.I'm not following your argument. Can you elaborate?
Why wouldn't the firearm apply? Even if it were 100% from Texas like home grown marijuana, the fact that the felon could have bought a firearm through interstate commerce lowers the demand of firearms (albeit by only 1) and affects interstate commerce in the same way.Even though marijuana is illegal there is commerce of it. Growing your own means you don't have to buy it from the market hence lowering demand and affecting commerce.
His firearm may not imply.
It can be construed that way but, as far as the Raich case was concerned owning the marijuana was fine. But, growing marijuana so you did not have to buy more affected commerce.Why wouldn't the firearm apply? Even if it were 100% from Texas like home grown marijuana, the fact that the felon could have bought a firearm through interstate commerce lowers the demand of firearms (albeit by only 1) and affects interstate commerce in the same way.
That's not an accurate assessment of the case.It can be construed that way but, as far as the Raich case was concerned owning the marijuana was fine. But, growing marijuana so you did not have to buy more affected commerce.
If that was true then my sources were incorrect.Ironically, Angel Raich herself did NOT grow marijuana. The facts in the case state that she received it from others who grew it locally.
Your sources were definitely incorrect. I'm sure you can find the case online if you Google it, but since I have it right here, I'll post some portions of the case relevant to our discussion:If that was true then my sources were incorrect.