What IS legal? An issue that needs to be discussed

[Cat Whisperer]

With the intent (as most of us ascribe to) of keeping well within the law, I am raising the question of what is legal to build and/or own & shoot.

The premice from which we must start is the law.  (Check our reference section for the FINE print.)

I believe the two majic terms are 1898 and replica.  (additional comments welcome here).  If the design was 1898 or before (replica or original) it's ok.  That's my simplified understanding.

That identifies designs (such as Stokes - WWI and the grandfather of modern looking mortars) as being AFTER 1898.  UNLESS, there is historical evidence of similar designs of elevation/windage existing on or before 1898.

(Understand I am NOT a LAWYER, I am just laying out what I think is reasonable and consistant with the law.)

So what deisgns are there (which our modern cannon/mortars emulate) that existed in 1898 and before?

Has anyone done a patent search on elevation/windage mechanisms applicable to mortars/cannon?

What references (periodicals, text books, etc.) are there discussing the issues.

This is the place to build a collection of references - to ensure that what we're doing is well within the law.

[Double D]

This is an important topic and we want to hear from you folks. We need your knowledge.

The Stokes mortar was developed in 1915 and Brandt and other improved on it.  

But were there "grenade and bomb" launchers prior and what did they look like?

The T&E mounts found on the Stokes; the legs that give the Stokes it's elevation and windage adjustment did that first appear with the Stokes or did it come from some where else?

[John N]

So is this black powder cannon illegal?

http://www.diamondbackcannons.com/

[Double D]

You would have to ask ATF if it's Illegal?

Can you tell me what pre 1898 Cannon it's a replica of?

[Mike Scott]

One way to compare is to look at trends in muzzleloading rifles.  Some of the newer ones are not replicas but they are passing ATF approval because they are still limited to muzzleloading only.  At this time, it does not seem that there is much concern over whether it looks like a pre 1898 design or not.  That could change of course.

[jj1]

simple it is a replica of a civil war cannon. nothing says it
has to be a exact replica.  :grin:
the rubber tires are for safety reasons like safe towing and to
reduce stress on the carriage. :wink:

[John N]

The diamondback cannon sure looks like a modern design to me.

First let me say that  I certainly do not want to dispute anything from your informative posts on this subject and want to be safe AND legal. I was just curious how the ATF might view this apparently modern black powder cannon design.

So I just spoke with the guy that builds and sells these cannons, a nice fellow named Mark. Mark says he spent a year going back and forth with the ATF trying to determine their legality. The removal breach was a major sticking point. Although Mark left that design feature in place, he modified his accompanying literature to state that breach removal is strictly for bore cleaning and observation and NOT for powder loading. He also designed a muzzle loading tool, basically a long rod with a powder cannister on the end.  You load a measured amount of loose powder in the cannister, close the cannister, insert it in the barrel via the muzzle, run it all the way to the breach face, and turn the rod counterclockwise. This releases the powder and places it where it is supposed to go. The loading tool accompanies every cannon he sells.

Apparently these actions allowed him to convince the ATF to treat this gun as a muzzle-loading black powder gun.

Mark says he has shipped the cannons all over the US. He cautions to follow all local ordinances but is steadfast in saying hat the AFT considers his cannons in the same category as modern black powder muzzle loading firearms.

Does this sound on the level to you? I am by no means an expert.

[jj1]

one could argue that my cannon was not a replica although
it is a lot closer than the diamondback. it also loads from the
muzzle only. it is not a exact replica but it was as close as i could
get. :grin:

[Double D]

Actually John, except for the rubber tires it resembles some early 1890's field pieces,  All it needs to look like a piece I saw used in the pictures from Boer war is a splinter shield.

The Breech loading cannon does date to before 1898.  The Whitworth was  used at Getteysburg.

JJ1, those wheels, well they are big!

[jj1]

lol  :-D  yes they are rather large at 5 feet in diameter.

[Cat Whisperer]

Apparently these actions allowed him to convince the ATF to treat this gun as a muzzle-loading black powder gun.

John N.  - It would be VERY interesting to see a copy of BATF's letter approving his design as a non-DD.  That would set some precidence, although BATF has been known to reverse itself.  Did he happen to mention such an approval?

[John N]

He's doing a gun show in Vegas through this weekend, but I'll ask him to fax me a copy of his BATF approval next week.

[Double D]

What he should do  is post the letter on his website!

[Blaster]

Hey John N......Just wondering if there is an update on the golf ball cannon (the one that the BATF had apparently approved).  I sure hope the responding letter from the BATF is posted so we can all see just what their determination is.
Thanks John.....

[mtnman37879]

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  
 — Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
This says that I can have anything arms related I want. BATF stinks!!!

[Double D]

mtnman37879,

You won't find any one on this board who will dispute your position in support of the Second Amendment.   But, the GCA of 68 and the NFA of 32 have not been over turned as a violation of the Second amendment yet. The discussion here is not about the validity of those two laws but how to enjoy our hobby and obey those two laws until they are over turned.

There is a place for political discussion of the Second Amendment on Graybeards.  You can express you feelings there about the legality of the GCA and and NFA.  Here is the link Second Amendment and Political Issues Discussion

In the mean time if you have any information about Mortar designs such as the Stokes that can help us determine if they were made prior to 1899 we sure would appreciate it.

[Cat Whisperer]

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  
 — Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

While I agree with you (what part of SHALL NOT doesn't the legislature understand?) I'd just rather not be part of the test case to go before the supreme court.

HOWEVER, this IS the place to post what WE find about MORTAR and CANNON designs done before 1899!  By bringing these to our collective attention we then have a wider collection of designs from which to make replicas (which ARE legal).

Thanks for your patience.

[mtnman37879]

With the 2nd amendment post I was just reminding everyone that we do have a constitution. And in the proper forum you are just preaching to the choir. As for the Stokes mortar why no look up the patent and check the date. That is what the BATF is going to do to determine the date.
 I also wonder about the Whitworth Breech loading cannon. MR Ducks builds these for sale and I am going to purchase one regardless. It is pre 1898, but it is NOT a muzzleloader.

[Double D]

The Whitworth is pre 1899 Mid to early  1860's be more exact. I have a set of plans and have it in mind as a future project.

Muzzleloading isn't the criteria, made before 1899 is the criteria as long as it isn't rimfire or center fire using fixed ammunition.  And, even if it does use fixed ammo as long as the ammo no longer manufactured and not availble commercially and the gun was made before 1899 it's an antique.

Everything we have found on the Stokes is that it was first made in 1915.

[Cat Whisperer]

....As for the Stokes mortar why no look up the patent and check the date. ....

Patent searching is indeed a good idea.  There is a limitation to doing it on the internet, there is a date beforewhich there is little that has been scanned and posted.  That requires a personal search in DC (and I'll be doing it this fall).

From what I've read on the net (and queried the author of the article/books) Stokes got the idea from a security warning device that had a large blank cartridge in it that when tripped would follow a wire down and hit a firing pin, hence the mortar shell ('bomb') doing the same and that was 1914/1915 design/adoption.  Appologies for my poor research techniques in not quoting the reference here and now.

There were a HUGE number of inventions published, some patented, in the 1800's - it was, of course, the industrial revolution.  Finding a few of these and publicizing them is, of course, to our wellfare.

[Blaster]

This subject reminds me of my posting of some pictures of a little deck gun that should certainly be considered a repro of the Whitworth breech loader.  For anyone interested in what it looked like, suggest checking my post of April 1st under the caption of "Blaster Bob's Deck Gun", the pictures which Double D was kind enough to help me post.  Of course, it is fuze fired, loaded from the breech and also cleaned from the breech.  I was informed that this particular set-up, without a carriage, was fired at the Knob Creek M.G. shoot which is attended by the BATF folks and there were no exceptions taken.  I'm sure open for opinions from you fellow BP cannon and mortar shooters.  Thanks!

[Double D]

No there shouldn't have been an exception taken to it Bob,  The criteria isn't breech loading.  There are plenty of pre 1899 breech loaders.

But muzzleloading it and using fuse to fire doesn't make it an antique either.

[Kansas Boomer]

New to this forum. I want to build a breech loading 10 ga. with a 1" bore. That way I would have the convenience of pre loaded powder charges, but with the 1" bore it would still be a muzzle loader. As the 1" ball would be to large to be loaded through the breech. Like to make it resemble "Long Cecil" of the boer war. Any idea if this would pass BATF muster?  Boomer

[Double D]

Kansas Boomer,

The only correct answer you are going to get is by writing ATF in Washington DC.   My opinion won't hold water in court.

What I suggest you do is collect some articles on the Long Cecil showing it's history, and especially when it was made...pre 1899.

Prepare a packet describing how you would like to make the recreation.  Emphasize its scale.  Emphasize the fact that the round ball will be muzzle loaded and you will be using ten gauge blank cartridges for firing.  I would send them a drawing of your idea.

Personally I think they will disapprove of your idea.  I think the 10 guage shotgun shell falls to close to being fixed ammo....think like a liberal here.

What I would do is build the gun one inch. Make foil cartridges and load it from the breech.

[Kansas Boomer]

Double D, afraid the idea of building a scaled down version of "Long Cecil" is out. Further reading tells me it was designed around Dec.1899, and test fired Jan.18,1900. So you really couldn't say it was built before the ATF deadline. Still like the idea of the breech loader, if the 10ga. is out because ammo is currently available for it, how about an 8ga. I think Cannon Mania has 8ga. cases. Think I will write to the ATF and ask if the 10ga. or 8ga. are considered obsolete. Perhaps a breech loading version of the French Schneider Creusot.  Boomer

[Cat Whisperer]

Winchester (and replicas thereof) makes a 10 ga. blank cannon.

That tells me that, since 10ga ammo is available, most likely the 10 ga blank must be shorter than the 10 ga ammo such that the real stuff won't chamber.  The one's I've seen are aslo marked blackpowder blanks only.

That's option 1.  Option 2 would be to make a line-throwing device.  That is in a different catagory than a 'firearm' (legal definition of firearm).  There are plenty of these around that use 45-70 or 12ga blanks to propel the weight.  You can't, of course have the line itself in the barrel, so the projectiles have a long rod to attach the line to, in front of the muzzle.

Again, the real answer lies within the discression of the BATF.

I've seen 8ga and 4 gauge blanks (used in the iron industry to punch through the spiggot of a pot of iron to start the pour).

[Double D]

Let's get one thing straight.  Breech loaders can be antique pre 1899 legal cannons.

breech loading cannon's firing fixed ammunition made before 1899 or are only not considered  aniques if they ammunition is still commercially avaialable.  That's the catch.  If you look long enough and hard enough you will find some on selling rounds for just about any cannon ever made even the pre 1899's.

Blaster Bob's little 20 mm Civil War deck gun with the screw breech was perfectly legal as long as it could not fire fixed rounds. .  He could load 20 mm projectiles add powder and fire.  He could not chamber a 20mm loaded round and fire.

I still have it in the back of my mind to build one of those.