Posted on 12/15/2006 11:50:17 PM PST by neverdem
Fortunately for us all, of both sexes, that "gun" doesn't use gas or compressed air. Although I guess a liberal, feminazi judge, or certain posters here, might want to define it as being explosive.
>>Trouble is, where is the "fire" in the BB-gun firearm?<<
They are arguing it is the "explosion" of compressed gas from the co2 cartridge.
You know, like the explosion of compressed gas used when firing a spit wad through a straw.
Nope, the spring operates what amounts to an air pump. It's the compressed air that expels the projectile. Oh there are some spring guns that just sort of flip a lightweight pellet out directly, but those aren't BB guns.
This definition of course encompasses paint-ball guns as well as conventional BB and pellet guns.
>>A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.<<
I guess it depends on what is meant by "explosive". But then, that is pretty clear as well unless an explosive temper is considered an "explosive".
But in describing firearms, they are using the word as a noun as opposed to an adjetive. It is the noun "explosive" that then creates the discharge. It is not an "explosive discharge" as much as an explosive substance discharging.
My question was how far legislatures should be allowed to go in redefining words. IMHO, for an act to be criminal it must be forbidden both by a broad common-meaning reading of the act, and by any explicit definitions provided therein.
If the goal is for a piece of legislation to forbid someone from possessing a firearm, airgun, or other weapon that propels an object down a barrel using high-pressure gasses derived from any sort, the legislative text should use the term "projectile weapon" rather than firearm. The definition of "projectile weapon" could then be narrowed in further legislative text, but could not be widened to include non-projectile weapons. If the legislation was designed to address non-projectile weapons as well, then it should just use the term "weapons" or else designate them clearly: "It shall be unlawful for (person) to possess a Section-13 weapon. The term "section-13" weapon includes all devices which use high-pressure gasses, from any sort, to propel any solid object or collection of objects with a total momentum greater than XX or a total kinetic energy greater than YY.
Not in MN, but in searching for the legal definition, I found a Riverside CA site that had this definition of "Firearm"
Section 9.12.010 Definition of firearm.
In this chapter, "firearm" means a gun, pistol, rifle, air rifle or air gun, b-b gun, arrow, crossbow, or any other instrument of any kind, character or description which throws or projects a bullet or missile or substance by means of elastic force, air, or explosive substance likely to cause bodily harm. (Ord. 6423 § 1, 1998; prior code § 35.1)
It looks like I've found a place where a squirt gun could be classed as a firearm, depending on how broadly "elastic force" is interpreted.
Not in MN, but in searching for the legal definition, I found a Riverside CA site that had this definition of "Firearm"
Section 9.12.010 Definition of firearm.
In this chapter, "firearm" means a gun, pistol, rifle, air rifle or air gun, b-b gun, arrow, crossbow, or any other instrument of any kind, character or description which throws or projects a bullet or missile or substance by means of elastic force, air, or explosive substance likely to cause bodily harm. (Ord. 6423 § 1, 1998; prior code § 35.1)
It looks like I've found a place where a squirt gun could be classed as a firearm, depending on how broadly "elastic force" is interpreted.
Actually not, they are using "explosive" as an adjective, modifying the noun "charge".
"A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant"
Actually not, they are using "explosive" as an adjective, modifying the noun "charge".
"A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant"
Says who? You cited California's definition in post #106 that is even broader!
Do we need to examine the definitions in all 50 states -- would you change your mind?
Minn. Court decleres 2 + 2 = 5 !!!
You points just prove how consistently sloppy legal reporting is in the MSM.
It generally done by someone with no legal training or by some fool who could not hack it in the legal profession.
Aren't fools so ingenious. If the court doesn't get you your represenative will. We are safest on holidays when neithe is in session.
It's unclear what the phrase "likely to cause bodily harm" means. I don't think a direct-pump squirtgun would qualify in any case, though a pneumatic one like a Super-Soaker® might. On the other hand, a can of oven cleaner would seem to qualify even more, since it throws a substance by means of compressed gas and would be very likely to cause bodily harm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.