MN judges write new law. Say BB guns are firearms.

[ShootSpeeders]

Another judge takes a bribe and writes a law that makes no sense. BB guns are no more firearms than slingshots are.

Minnesota court: BB gun is a ‘firearm’

sep 28 2015 A BB gun is a firearm, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court made its declaration in the case of a man who was not allowed to possess a firearm because of an earlier felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

This is the law that tripped up David Haywood.

Any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports, possesses, or receives a firearm, commits a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

But the law doesn’t define what a firearm is.

Haywood argues that a dictionary definition of firearm — “a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder” — should clear him because a BB gun doesn’t use gunpowder.

 

[Lakhota]

You'll shoot your eye out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judges don't 'write' laws, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

 

[Yarddog]

You'll shoot your eye out.

Not likely really. are you projecting your own ineptness ?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Judges don't 'write' laws, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

Ooh buddy. Are you naive or what?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Judges don't 'write' laws, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

Yes they do. Every time they go beyond the law, they legislate from the bench. Court precedent has all the power and effect of law and allows prosecutors to pursue cases based on definitions that go beyond the letter of the law.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Judges don't 'write' laws, the notion is ignorant idiocy.

HAHAHA. Tell that to the 300 million american citizens who have to pay for the k-12 education of illegal aliens because the supreme court ordered states do so.

 

[aris2chat]

Another judge takes a bribe and writes a law that makes no sense. BB guns are no more firearms than slingshots are.

Minnesota court: BB gun is a ‘firearm’

sep 28 2015 A BB gun is a firearm, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court made its declaration in the case of a man who was not allowed to possess a firearm because of an earlier felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

This is the law that tripped up David Haywood.

Any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports, possesses, or receives a firearm, commits a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

But the law doesn’t define what a firearm is.

Haywood argues that a dictionary definition of firearm — “a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder” — should clear him because a BB gun doesn’t use gunpowder.

Slingshot have a long history as weapons of war, very deadly weapons, even in the hands of a boy

 

[Wildman]

BB guns are no more firearms than slingshots are.

what an idiot!!
where is the "fire" in "BB" ?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Another judge takes a bribe and writes a law that makes no sense. BB guns are no more firearms than slingshots are.

Minnesota court: BB gun is a ‘firearm’

sep 28 2015 A BB gun is a firearm, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.

The court made its declaration in the case of a man who was not allowed to possess a firearm because of an earlier felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

This is the law that tripped up David Haywood.

Any person who has been convicted of a crime of violence, as defined in section 624.712, subdivision 5, and who ships, transports, possesses, or receives a firearm, commits a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both.

But the law doesn’t define what a firearm is.

Haywood argues that a dictionary definition of firearm — “a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder” — should clear him because a BB gun doesn’t use gunpowder.

Slingshot have a long history as weapons of war, very deadly weapons, even in the hands of a boy

Where's the fire in sling shots and bb guns?

Do you know what "firearm" means?

 

[Lakhota]

You'll shoot your eye out.

Not likely really. are you projecting your own ineptness ?

I'm almost 69, and been shooting guns since I was about 6. BB guns are the most dangerous to the eyes.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You'll shoot your eye out.

Not likely really. are you projecting your own ineptness ?

I'm almost 69, and been shooting guns since I was about 6. BB guns are the most dangerous to the eyes.

Not. BB will take out the eye, maybe. .45 will take out the back of the head

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You'll shoot your eye out.

Not likely really. are you projecting your own ineptness ?

I'm almost 69, and been shooting guns since I was about 6. BB guns are the most dangerous to the eyes.

It doesn't make it a firearm. Compound bows are also dangerous, but they aren't firearms.

 

[aris2chat]

You'll shoot your eye out.

Not likely really. are you projecting your own ineptness ?

I'm almost 69, and been shooting guns since I was about 6. BB guns are the most dangerous to the eyes.

Not. BB will take out the eye, maybe. .45 will take out the back of the head

some use co2 cartridges

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Take a look, idiot. See the fire coming out of the barrel? That's a firearm.

 

[Missourian]

The federal definition of "firearm" doesn't even include black powder revolvers or muzzle loaders.

However, Federal law does not prohibit these persons from possessing or receiving an antique firearm. The term “antique firearm” means any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898...[or modern replica thereof].


Thus, a muzzle loading weapon that meets the definition of an “antique firearm” is not a firearm and may lawfully be received and possessed by a prohibited person under the GCA.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download



​

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Another judge takes a bribe and writes a law that makes no sense. BB guns are no more firearms than slingshots are.

Slingshot have a long history as weapons of war, very deadly weapons, even in the hands of a boy

So do swords. But they're still not firearms. THINK

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The federal definition of "firearm" doesn't even include black powder revolvers or muzzle loaders.

However, Federal law does not prohibit these persons from possessing or receiving an antique firearm. The term “antique firearm” means any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898...[or modern replica thereof].


Thus, a muzzle loading weapon that meets the definition of an “antique firearm” is not a firearm and may lawfully be received and possessed by a prohibited person under the GCA.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/download



​

A small correction, but an important one for the purpose of this thread, muzzle loaders are considered firearms too, as indicated by your quotation. It just isn't the type prohibited to felons. For the sake of consistency, a firearm is any projectile weapon in which fire is involved in propelling a bullet or shot out of the barrel. A bb gun uses compressed air; no fire involved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously the OP didn't bother to read his own cited article, or the link to the ruling in the article.

The court was following precedent as it's required to do:

“Haywood’s argument might be persuasive if we were writing on a clean slate,” Judge Michelle Ann Larkin wrote in today’s opinion (pdf). However, Minnesota’s appellate courts have consistently interpreted the term “firearm” as used within certain sections of chapter 609 to include BB guns.”

Consequently, this wasn't some 'capricious' decision by a 'rogue' judge, but a court following settled and accepted state law on the matter.

Indeed, it would be wrong for the court to rule that a BB gun was not a 'firearm' in conflict with that state law.

Moreover, the court acknowledges the fact that designating a BB gun to be a 'firearm' is problematic:

'In previous cases of a similar nature, the court has encouraged the Legislature to clarify the issue, but it has not done so, even though it was first alerted to the need eight years ago.

“We presume that the legislature’s inaction is with full knowledge and approval of existing caselaw applying the definition of firearm from the game-and-fish laws to certain sections of (the law cited above),” Larkin said.'

Not only is the court not 'writing' law, the court is in fact following the law as enacted by the state legislature reflecting the will of the people, where it's the sole responsibility of the people to clarify what constitutes a firearm through the political process, not the court's.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Obviously the OP didn't bother to read his own cited article, or the link to the ruling in the article.

The court was following precedent as it's required to do:

“Haywood’s argument might be persuasive if we were writing on a clean slate,” Judge Michelle Ann Larkin wrote in today’s opinion (pdf). However, Minnesota’s appellate courts have consistently interpreted the term “firearm” as used within certain sections of chapter 609 to include BB guns.”

Consequently, this wasn't some 'capricious' decision by a 'rogue' judge, but a court following settled and accepted state law on the matter.

Indeed, it would be wrong for the court to rule that a BB gun was not a 'firearm' in conflict with that state law.

Moreover, the court acknowledges the fact that designating a BB gun to be a 'firearm' is problematic:

'In previous cases of a similar nature, the court has encouraged the Legislature to clarify the issue, but it has not done so, even though it was first alerted to the need eight years ago.

“We presume that the legislature’s inaction is with full knowledge and approval of existing caselaw applying the definition of firearm from the game-and-fish laws to certain sections of (the law cited above),” Larkin said.'

Not only is the court not 'writing' law, the court is in fact following the law as enacted by the state legislature reflecting the will of the people, where it's the sole responsibility of the people to clarify what constitutes a firearm through the political process, not the court's.

So an elected legislature doesn't know what a "firearm" is? This just keeps getting better. There's just no flattering way to see this.

By the way, what you seem to miss is that it's a federal law being implemented, so state definitions at variance with the law cannot apply.