Can NFA apply to muzzleloaders

[barnetmill]

I asked on an earlier thread if a burst fired by a single pull of the trigger constitutes full automatic fire if it comes from an muzzleloader. I checked the next day for answers and the question got moved. The staff member I think should have answered the question before he or she moved it.

Do any of the you "legal" experts know if the NFA act can in anyway apply to a hand held muzzle loader that fires multiple shots from a single trigger pull. It is possible (See my orignal post) to first a burst, one shot following the next from the same barrel with only one pull of the trigger.

I am not talking about a blackpowder gatling gun hooked to an electric motor.

 

[CQBArms]

Muzzleloaders are not firearms.

No.

There is a gun that is a black powder muzzleloading device that looks like a credit card. The federal gov't doesn't regulate muzzle loaders or consider them firearms in the sense of GCA of 1968...so they are not firearms, not being firearms they would not be controled under the NFA. The credit card gun is not considered an AOW, which it would be if it was cartridge based.

Your question is like asking if paintball guns that shoot full auto would be considered machine guns and fall under NFA. No because they are not firearms.

 

[barnetmill]

I was not sure if NFA weapons were defined legally as being limited exclusively to breach loaders.

My concerns were related to reports that ATF was trying to regulate muzzle loaders that used shotgun primers and that ATF was giving air rifle owners probelms if they wanted to put a silencer on their gun.

By the way if what you say is true then one could put a silencer on a muzzle loading gun that was loaded with smokless powders.

 

[barnetmill]

I just went to BATF website and it appears that they can regulate muzzle loaders.
Section 5845(f), Title 26, United States Code, regulates certain weapons as "destructive devices" which are subject to the registration and tax provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA). Section 5845(f)(2) includes within the definition of "destructive device" any type of weapon which will or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel of which has a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter. However, section 5845(f)(3) excludes from the definition of "destructive device" any device which is neither designed or redesigned for use as a weapon and any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device. The definition of "destructive device" in the Gun Control Act (GCA), 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, is identical to that in the NFA.
My take on this- if it is over 1/2 inch they can if they decide to call it a "distructive device" if it is a weapon. If it less .50 caliber, probably not but I would not count on it.

 

[CQBArms]

Then all those .54 caliber muzzle loaders or black powder shotgun owners are in for a world of hurt.

 

[barnetmill]

CQBArms "Then all those .54 caliber muzzle loaders or black powder shotgun owners are in for a world of hurt."

Absolutely not!

The original post included: "..."legal" experts know if the NFA act can in anyway apply to a hand held muzzle loader that fires multiple shots from a single trigger pull?"

No current .54 caliber muzzle loaders or black powder shotguns can be readily loaded for automatic fire. The ignition point has to well anterior of the usual location.

Sir please completely read my question and then please go the BATF website and read what is there.
Its my guess that the the BATF does not have any position yet on this topic since no one in recent years has tried what I mentioned. I might add to do so sounds very dangerous.

I was hoping that someone that knows more than me would respond.