Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Minnesota court rules BB gun is a firearm
St. Paul Pioneer Press ^ | SHANNON PRATHER

Posted on 12/15/2006 11:50:17 PM PST by neverdem

A convicted felon barred from carrying a firearm broke the law when he started toting a BB gun, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.

John Fleming Jr. couldn't legally carry a gun because of two felony assault convictions, so he packed a BB gun instead.

Ramsey County prosecutors decided Fleming was splitting hairs and charged him with unlawful possession of a firearm.

Fleming won when a Ramsey County District judge threw out the charge, ruling the statute doesn't apply to BB guns. But the appeals court ruled prosecutors could again take aim at the two-time felon.

The appellate court reinstated the charge against Fleming, finding that a firearm is "any gun from which a shot or a projectile is discharged by means of explosive, gas or compressed air."

Fleming is accused of carrying a black metal BB gun that discharges a pellet by means of a CO2 cartridge.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: 2stupid4words; banglist; bbguns; firearm; stupidjudges
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last
To: muir_redwoods
"This is my rifle, this is my gun

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.

101 posted on 12/16/2006 10:03:48 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

>>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.


102 posted on 12/16/2006 10:04:29 PM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
So the BB guns that fire by compressing and releasing a spring are still OK?

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.

103 posted on 12/16/2006 10:07:13 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: KarinG1

>>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.


104 posted on 12/16/2006 10:08:59 PM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I don't want judges to be the final answer on what is a gun and what isn't. Do you?

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.

105 posted on 12/16/2006 10:21:25 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
No, silly. It clearly said explosive or "compressed gas" and a projectile.

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.

106 posted on 12/16/2006 10:24:41 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
No, silly. It clearly said explosive or "compressed gas" and a projectile.

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.

107 posted on 12/16/2006 10:24:42 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
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.

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"

108 posted on 12/16/2006 10:28:22 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
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.

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"

109 posted on 12/16/2006 10:28:22 PM PST by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Manic_Episode

110 posted on 12/16/2006 10:51:23 PM PST by gnarledmaw (I traded freedom for security and all I got were these damned shackles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"The definition is over broad"

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?

111 posted on 12/17/2006 4:29:07 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Minn. Court decleres 2 + 2 = 5 !!!


112 posted on 12/17/2006 5:57:41 AM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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.


113 posted on 12/17/2006 6:36:54 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Or a "pea shooter". They actually used to sell them in the 50's and were quite popular with mischievous young boys (such as I was).

I and 2 of my friends were busted and taken to the prinicpal's office for using these deadly weapons at school and given a spanking with a wide and heavy leather belt. It really hurt and stung. We didn't cry or tell. Better that than to tell my parents.

There were no lawyers involved and no committee's of parents or "civil rights" groups intervened on our part. It was just a normal day at our Jr. High.
114 posted on 12/17/2006 8:40:58 AM PST by garyhope (It's World War IV, right here, right now courtesy of Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

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.


115 posted on 12/17/2006 3:47:17 PM PST by Steamburg (If we don't want our nation bad enough to protect it, it won't be ours long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
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.

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.

116 posted on 12/17/2006 9:33:04 PM PST by supercat (Sony delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson