[Joe Brower]

robertpaulsen,

What you state makes sense on its surface, and such is the manner in which our fundamental freedoms have slowly been legislated out of existence.

If the law wants to keep this miscreant from possessing anything that even faintly resembles a firearm, then it needs to rule appropriately. What we are seeing here is an overreaching and erroneous ruling that is simply another band-aid over a wound that refuses to heal. What is to keep this criminal from carving a handgun replica out of a peice of wood and painting it black? Would you be happy if that also was arbitrarily ruled a "firearm"?

What you are endorsing is some activist judge legislating from the bench, and in the process allowing criminals to dictate what "rights" are allowed the law-abiding. In doing so, you are advocating the punishment of millions of law-abiding citizens, in order to preempt the actions of a few criminals.

This guy needs to be put on a very short leash, but calling an airgun a "firearm" is not the way to accomplish that end.

[night reader]

This guy needs to be put on a very short leash, but calling an airgun a "firearm" is not the way to accomplish that end.

Probably the most intelligent, complete, yet succinct comment yet made in this thread.

[robertpaulsen]

"What you are endorsing is some activist judge legislating from the bench"

The Minnesota legislature, duly elected by the citizens of Minnesota, defined "firearm" -- not some activist judge.

"Definition of Firearm: 'Firearm' means a gun that discharges a projectile or shot by means of an explosive, a gas, or compressed air."
Minn. Stat. § 97A.015, Page 38.

[blackie]

How about a potato gun ~ there's "fire" exploding hairspray, etc. I like starting fluid (ether) it gives a bigger bang.>:-}

[El Gato]

calling an air gun a "firearm" is not the way to accomplish that end.

Agreed, but in this case it was the legislature that did that, not the appellate judge.

Now in most states I'd agree that this would have been an inappropriate ruling, but MN had an asinine definition of firearm enshrined in state law.

If if wasn't such a liberal state, there might be a chance the state Supreme Court would overturn the definition, perhaps because it's over broad. Clearly El Gato sticking a projectile up his...well you know, and then cutting one, does not a firearm make, (no source of ignition :) except in MN, NJ, and probably a few other states as well. Pea shooters, a plastic straw and a hard peas, are firearms in those states. I wouldn't have believed that even of them, not even of Massachusetts or Connecticut, but I wouldn't be surprised if the latter two states use similar definitions.