Jump to content

Court ruling makes Minnesota latest state to call BB gun 'firearm&


Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/29/court-ruling-makes-minnesota-latest-state-to-call-bb-gun-firearm/?intcmp=hpbt3

 

Perhaps if Ralphie had been told his Red Ryder BB gun was legally considered a “firearm” in some states, he wouldn’t have had to be told “you’ll shoot your eye out.”

It turns out the spring air action pellet gun so sought after in the holiday classic “A Christmas Story” is considered far more than a toy in the eyes of the law. Case in point: Minnesota, where the Court of Appeals ruled on Monday to uphold the conviction of David Lee Haywood for possession of a “firearm” – in this case a Walther CP99 Compact .177-caliber BB gun.

Haywood wasn’t allowed to own a handgun after a 2005 felony drug conviction, so he was sent back to prison after cops found the BB gun in his glove compartment during a 2013 traffic stop. Haywood argued that a BB gun wasn’t a firearm. The Minnesota statute uses the word “firearm” but never defines it, so Haywood said the accepted definition of “firearm” should apply: a weapon that features a projectile fired by gunpowder. That’s far different from the operation of a BB gun, which uses no gunpowder to expel its shell.

“Treating airguns as firearms would make teaching firearm safety to children much more difficult.”

- Jennifer Baker, NRA

But Haywood, 37, was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of five years because the appellate court instead used language established in 1977, when the state Supreme Court defined a BB gun as a firearm using wording plucked from the state game and fish laws. Because the state legislature has enacted other laws in the statute since that ruling 38 years ago without adding a new definition, the court’s 1977 explanation has stuck. It can only be changed if the legislature decides to adopt new language or if the state Supreme Court changes the definition.

“Generally, airguns are not defined as firearms under state or federal law because of the numerous negative effects such a definition would create,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “In the case of state law, many states use multiple definitions of firearm, some of which may include airguns. For example, airguns will almost always be excluded from definitions governing possession, transfer and use, but may be included for criminal misuse.”

 

State definitions vary, with New Jersey and Rhode Island using some of the strictest language, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Those states classify all non-powder guns as firearms. Illinois and Michigan treat certain non-powder guns as firearms while Connecticut, Delaware and North Dakota list them as “dangerous weapons.” Thirteen states impose age restrictions on the possession, use and transfer of non-powder guns.

“Treating airguns as firearms would make teaching firearm safety to children much more difficult,” Baker said, listing a litany of potential issues with designating BB guns as firearms.

Grant Gibeau, who represented Haywood, told FoxNews.com that even though the definition of a “firearm” may be arbitrary when examined state by state, it’s anything but subjective when applied as a standard within the state. For instance, the court didn’t take Haywood’s intentions into account, nor did they care that the BB gun closely resembled a standard firearm.

“It’s not a matter of the court looking at the client,” said Gibeau, who’s appealing Haywood’s case to the Minnesota Supreme Court. “It’s pretty much: ‘Do you fit into this category? And if you do, the court has to do the minimum.’

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really mixed on this for multiple reasons.

 

1)  I'm all for States Rights/Sovereignty.

If a state wants to define BB guns as firearms, fine, don't like it, move.

 

2)  I can agree with calling them firearms if used criminally, we already use this all the time.

You use a realistic replica of firearm in a crime and people think it is real, you get charged as if it is real.

 

3)  There are some Spring BB/Pellet guns that I would classify with firearms, i.e. as Dangerous Weapons due to their velocity and ability to seriously injure and/or kill.

 

4)  I think that non-violent felons, should have all Rights restored after completing their sentence and parole, and successfully reintegrating into society.

What constitutes violent, you terrorize the fuck out of people & make them fear for life and limb, you use a weapon/firearm, you're violent.

Prior criminal history should definitely be taken into consideration and the context of the violent offense.

E.g. You have a single Assault charge from a barfight 5 yrs ago vs four such charges over a decade. The latter and I classify you as violent & habitual, no guns for you.

 

Domestic Violence / Restraining Order

They hand these out like candy.  I think a person should have to really have proof/witnesses, a lie detector test or police report or other legal history showing such.

Again, prior history and context should come into effect, one instance of a bitch seriously getting under your skin and no further instances for 5-10yrs.

 

5)  Mental status, Adjudicated Mentally Defective

 

C'mon, taking guns away from seniors because they decide to let their kids or lawyer handle their finances,because maybe they'ree getting forgetful or just don't want the hassle anymore?

Negative GhostRider, the pattern is full.

 

You check into a mental health institute for help with a temporary problem, or have chronic issues with something not endangering to yourself or others.

Doc says you're good to go, you're good to go.

BUT!  We need to muzzle the docs with an anti-gun agenda, their opinion on guns is their opinion, they can keep it to themselves.

 

PTSD?

Lets evaluate you and temporarily suspend this Right until we know if you're a ticking time bomb or not.

 

Your a schizo, batshit crazy fucker, and walking around because the bleeding heart libtards say its cruel to institutionalize your ass?

No guns for you, and I throw your ass in an asylum and toss the key.

 

6) Drug Offenses

What kind of offense? 

Smoking a joint, selling a Quarter of weed to a friend, are you just a recreational user/dealer?

Or are you addicted to or dealing hardcore narcotics?  Smuggling drugs into the country?

Have you comitted crimes to feed your addiction?

Have you been through a rehab and established yourself as a non-user?

 

Where do we draw the line?  This is one of the hardest ones of all for me, and I'm still not decided where the line is.

I was a functioning addict/alcoholic, I committed no crimes other than purchase and using.

I've been free of it for two decades, no desire/urges, I'm not an addict.

However, in a couple of states they would deny me my 2A Right for a single arrest I had, no charges filed, no conviction.

And the antis would love to make this 100% everywhere, any arrest for drugs no matter what.

........................................

 

I could follow this down a rabbit hole in a big way.  Like discussing Voting Rights and welfare recipients, should they be allowed to vote?

Edited by ChileRelleno
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

A BB gun is not a firearm. It is a weapon. Possibly a lethal weapon if powerful enough. But a firearm is so called because it uses COMBUSTION to propel a projectile.

 

If you want to make it a crime for a felon to have an airgun then just fucking say so.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that batf ruled in 2005 about similar issues with paintball guns....
 

"The paintball gun examined by ATF is not a “firearm” as defined, because it does

not, is not designed to, and may not be readily converted to expel a projectile by

the action of an explosive and does not utilize the frame or receiver of a firearm."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

A BB gun is not a firearm. It is a weapon. Possibly a lethal weapon if powerful enough. But a firearm is so called because it uses COMBUSTION to propel a projectile.

 

If you want to make it a crime for a felon to have an airgun then just fucking say so.

Most do exactly that.

They define a firearm as you & I do, then they add air or spring guns to it in subsections...  Section 6-5-341 Definition of Firearms, ... (A) expels a BB/Pellet via compressed air or other gas (1) ... Spring.

Then for a means and purposes that BB/pellet/airsoft/replica gun is technically a firearm.

Its just more legalese bullshit.

It should be noted that batf ruled in 2005 about similar issues with paintball guns....

 

"The paintball gun examined by ATF is not a “firearm” as defined, because it does

not, is not designed to, and may not be readily converted to expel a projectile by

the action of an explosive and does not utilize the frame or receiver of a firearm."

The alphabet brigade can define any thing any way they want, and redefine it at any time.

But this isn't about the Feds, this is about States and this one in particular.

Please don't say the feds should be allowed to mandate definitions to the states.

My shoelace laying next to my AR could constitute intent to construct a machine gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of what everyone has said. I cant really elaborate because, well we dont have all night.

 

What I will say is this.

 

Parents need to educate their children. BB guns arnt just toys they CAN and will kill some one. But then again that requires parents being parents. The circle continues if parents are being parents their children wouldnt be robbing stores with BB guns because that kid thought it was a good alternative to a "real" gun.

 

BB guns cant be looked at as toys and thats what most people look at them as. Ignorant people prove time and time again they must be governed because they are too stupid to govern themselves. Hence warning labels. And the circle continues.

 

and i digress....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Said thats how they ruled on it when presented to them, and how they defined a firearm. Didnt say they mandated it on down from the mountain.

So what is your point, is it to infer that the state's courts/laws are wrong and that the Fed/ATF definition should be used?

Lets wait several years and see what their state Supreme Court says on the case... If they take it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They really need to straighten this crap out, because if one seriously takes a look at this (and nothing can be more serious than possible time behind bars and our 2nd amendment rights) you quickly realize the magnitude of calling an air or spring powered device a firearm. This ranks right up there with arresting kids for pop tarts and pointing a finger in a certain way. It's bullshit.  I'm not saying you can't call a bb gun a weapon, but you certainly can't call it a firearm. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they not read 18 USC C921?

 

(3)

The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; © any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
 
Stupid fucks.
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I  was a kid we used to shoot each other with BB guns. The old daisy lever spring guns didn't have enough power to even break the skin.

I shot a Rabbit once with my Daisy and it just looked at me like " WTF was that". laugh.png   Now when I got my first Crossman Pellet gun, that was a different story.

Edited by SHOTGUN MESSIAH
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote for Federal Law over State Law?

The appeals court used state law defined by their state supreme court, should federal law trump state law?

NO! But the definitions stands and has been accepted without question. A guideline. They should take this all the way.

FIRE ARM

 no pyro

No fire in a BB gun.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another vote for Federal Law over State Law?

The appeals court used state law defined by their state supreme court, should federal law trump state law?

 

NO! But the definitions stands and has been accepted without question. A guideline. They should take this all the way.FIRE ARM

 no pyro

No fire in a BB gun.

so if the Feds define something in law the states should abide by it?

They can't or shouldn't define as they see fit, within reason?

There are at least 3-4 states that air guns are defined as firearms outright or under certain circumstances.

Must they toe the federal line?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, states don't have to tow the line with the feds but they have some reasonable definitions. As a B student in grade school English, I can tell you that an air gun does not use fire.

 

A state should have a vote on something that will effect millions of people. It would be like calling soda beer and making it illegal for anybody under 21 to purchase.

 

Is a paintball and an airsoft rifle now a firearm in CommieSota? Democratic states like the shit hole known as Minnesota love federal control and money. They should probably listen to their handlers.

 

Looks like this bullshit definition has been in place since 2012 so it's nothing new. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/firearmsgd.pdf


Firearm
The term “firearm” means: (A) any weapon
(including a starter gun) which will or is
designed to or may readily be converted to expe
l a projectile by the ac
tion of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
© any firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
or (D) any destructive device. Such term
does not include an antique firearm.
18 U.S.C. §
921
(a)(3)
Note that this federal definition of “firear
m” is both broader
and narrower than the
definition of this term in Minnesota Statutes
. It is broader in defining the frame of a
firearm, as well as a firearm silencer, as bei
ng a “firearm.” Conversely, it is narrower than
Minnesota law by explicitly excluding muzzle-loading guns from being “firearms.” These
differences have important implications in certa
in situations for licensed dealers, the courts,
and the citizenry.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

If the states should follow federal 'common sense' gun laws or definitions, what happens when the ATF doesn't make sense or changes it as they see fit?

The ATF has been given the legal authority by the legislative branch to do just that with full power of law.

 

The states for the most part retain control of such via their legislative bodies or supreme Courts.

 

When did this case become federal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

eh, your're reading my shit all wrong. commies in minnesota love to suck federal cock so they should just go with the flow.

 

i live in montana and have a role in the shooting sports association, you can now hunt with silencers and your made in montana rifles, well we will use that for a rainy day.

 

we push for the rights of the people all the time.

 

i wish for a fucking civil war to wipe out all the commies. amen

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it make sense? Fuck no!

But don't quote the ATF/Fed law in a State case.

Letting that camel's nose under the tent never ends well.

And as you say about Minnesota, well the camel is in the tent.

Edited by ChileRelleno
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Said thats how they ruled on it when presented to them, and how they defined a firearm. Didnt say they mandated it on down from the mountain.

So what is your point, is it to infer that the state's courts/laws are wrong and that the Fed/ATF definition should be used?

Lets wait several years and see what their state Supreme Court says on the case... If they take it.

 

 

Are you just having a bad day or what? My point was to provide more information about a topic. No idea what your point is except you like to pick apart information.

 

I'll keep it simple. Fed law, state law, local law. ... I'm sure you don't mind when state law overrides in "your favor" when a local/county/city ordnance prohibits magazine capacity. So of course, state law trumps local in a few ways. On that note, some Fed laws trump state laws. Some we favor, some we don't. Question is if someone will fight a "state issue" all the way to the Supreme Court....and even then, its gamble.

 

I'm all for state's rights. I think all of us on this forum in one form or another are very liberty minded. If they want to call a BB gun a firearm then so be it. I say they're idiots. If colorado wants to have mag capacity laws and magpul moved out of the state, that's just how it goes for them as well. They did it to themselves. Based on your stance, you'd be ok with that state saying a slingshot is a firearm. Fires a hell of a lot faster and is multi-caliber. IF ONLY THERE WAS A WAY TO PREVENT "MOB RULE"?

 

Fed law DOES have its place. And yeah, the alphabet gang has its place as well in there. Because those same states eventually feed upon themselves, and those so-called "I didn't vote for that" people eventually are refugees into another state. Oh, and guess what? They like all those 'feel good' votes. Imagine that.  What does that have to do with anything? Not much. But its not a debate anyway because I don't live in Minnesota, and not part of that 'mob'.

Edited by whatmanual
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it make sense? Fuck no!

But don't quote the ATF/Fed law in a State case.

Letting that camel's nose under the tent never ends well.

And as you say about Minnesota, well the camel is in the tent.

 

I do agree about this stance. If state passed the law, then that is that. Fed should not be involved, or let their nose into the tent as you put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Pa a few years back, a guy killed a guy that owed him money with a point black shot to the heart with a pellet gun. But I still don't consider air rifles fire arms.

Same thing happened down here when I was in high school.  A kid killed another with a heart shot from a pellet gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...