Muzzleloaders Update
In an update to the muzzleloader ruling in Wyoming, reader gattsuru writes:
Found it on FindLaw [PDF].
Not quite sure what to think of it. I’m of the opinion that people we can’t trust with a muzzleloader shouldn’t get out of jail – I’ve been slashed by kitchen knives more often than I’ve been shot by a muzzleloader, that’s for damned sure, and I know knives are a bit easier to get a hold of. I just can’t see a single-shot gun being dangerous enough to justify the costs of applying the law, nevermind when you start comparing what an archery kit or even a bb gun could do. And having different definitions of ‘firearm’ as you cross state borders doesn’t make me happy, either.
The case looks interesting. Harris was not a poster child for the pro-gun side : he was convicted for robbery and aggravated robbery (can’t find out the exacts of those incidents), so I’d wager he wasn’t the ‘normal guy’ who got hit by a restraining order or standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. He also pretty clearly violated the big four rules of safety (and a couple of common sense) when he brought the gun to his shoulder and aimed through the scope at traffic (do not aim at anything you do not want to destroy, people!).
He was, however, clearly told by a sheriff that a muzzleloading, black powder weapon was not a firearm. And the court’s main holding, which keeps their whole case together, was that anyone of normal intelligence would assume a muzzleloader to be covered by the “firearm” law (while I think it’s safe to assume most sheriffs aren’t of normal intelligence, it’s not good when the courts admit it).
I’d have rathered they throw out the previous ruling, and instructed the state to instead have him tried for public disturbance or anything about bearing a weapon in public, but I dunno if that’s possible or what the relevant statutes are.
I’m not a lawyer.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:59 am
It would be interesting to see how Wyoming law defines a muzzleloader. I wouldn’t think that the Wyoming Supreme Court would be a hotbed of judicial activism, but I could be wrong.
In Utah he definitely would have been prevented from owning one. Utah law isn’t really clear on muzzleloaders as firearms but it is clear on prohibiting felons from owning “dangerous weapons”, a term which includes muzzleloaders and even compound bows. As a result, Utah stopped issuing hunting licenses to convicted felons a few years ago.
For people with misdemeanor DV convictions, it’s not a problem. Yet.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
The law seems to simply state that “Felons can’t own firearms”, and the citizen is supposed to assume that firearm includes muzzleloader since there are no exceptions writen (as opposed to the federal laws, which make clear exceptions for muzzleloaders).