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.
How far should judges allow legislatures to go in defining words? For example, while there would not be anything unconstitutional with forbidding felons from posessing alcohol, would it be proper for a legislature to extend the definition of firearm to include "any container of any size or description containing a potable liquid containing more than 0.5% ethanol, if the total quantity of ethanol exceeds more than 0.05oz"?
"a firearm is "any gun from which a shot or a projectile is discharged by means of explosive, gas or compressed air."
-- --
Idiotic ruling. This includes nail guns.
Is this guy, and the rest of the state, now banned from using nail guns without a permit?
Illinois does not require any licensing for 0.177 caliber weapons up to 700fps. Acquiring airguns above that requires a Firearm Owner's ID card ($5 for five years) but does not require any 4473 nonsense.
But to answer your question, if there is abuse, it is by the judges who are interpreting the words of legislature the way they want.
bump
Hillary calls for three day waiting period on all canned goods.
It would seem that a wad of paper discharged through a straw, propelled by air compressed in a young person's lungs and mouth would fit this criteria.
Their definition of the term "firearm" is still wrong, and for the wrong reasons.
If the citizens of the State of Minnesota, through their constitutionally elected state legislature, wish to define "firearms" this way, are you saying they cannot?
Not a big believer in federalism, are you?
If a BB gun is a firearm under the law, that has far-reaching consequences beyond just this case. The courts should think long and hard about that, since it's totally bogus and unfair to have "firearm" mean different things in different situations.The courts aren't responsible for this lunacy, the legislature is. According to Minn. Stat. 97A.015, subd. 19, a firearm is "a gun that discharges shot or a projectile by means of an explosive, a gas, or compressed air."
You just can't make this crap up.
He didn't say they didn't have jurisdiction to regulate it, but that they should do so using words according to their dictionary definitions. Remember, Big Brother redefined common words too.
Bad news for felons seeking work in the construction industry.
It may include water pistols...
There goes a job as a clown.
There are plenty of us out here in the hinterlands that are normal, everyday, 2nd Amendment-loving people. The problem is that we have half of the state's population living in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. If we could just get rid of that chunk of land, we'd be okay.
I've lived in Minnesota all my life, and I have never met anyone who is antigun. They're obviously around, but I've never spoken to one.
How about a potato gun ~ there's "fire" exploding hairspray, etc. I like starting fluid (ether) it gives a bigger bang.>:-}
This just means that you will need to get permission to buy a bb gun now.
"This is my rifle, this is my gun
One is for fighting, one is for fun"
Because legislatures often don't want to come out and admit to what they're doing, so they try to obfuscate it.
My question remains: if the legislature's definition of "firearm" included alcoholic beverages, should a judge allow someone to be prosecuted for unlawful possession of a "firearm" because he possessed a six-pack of beer? Or should a judge rule that regardless of what a legislature may decree, there is no way that a six-pack of beer can be so construed?
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.