Interesting Gun Case
Per the law, muzzleloaders have historically not been classified as firearms. The significance of this classification is that muzzleloaders are not subject to background checks, can be bought without going through a firearms dealer (i.e., you can mail order them), and felons can own them. In Wyoming, that just changed:
Supreme Court Says Muzzleloaders are Legally Firearms
The ruling comes in an appeal by a convicted felon who says he thought he was allowed to own a black powder rifle. Such rifles are excluded from the federal definition of firearms.
A spokesman for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department says the ruling will come as a blow to some Wyoming residents who have felony convictions in the past but who are now dedicated black powder hunters.
No details on the case. Anyone know?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
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 29th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Yep … it’s a State of Wyoming only issue.
The feds don’t consider a muzzleloader to be a “firearm”, but state courts and legislators can define “firearm” as they see fit in regards to state laws.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
We’re not talking strictly muzzle loaders either – cap and ball revolvers too, and that would include cap and ball revolver long-guns. There are also breach loading, loose powder rifles, such as were used in limited numbers during the American Revolution, and I would assume they fall under the same clasification as a muzzle loader (some of them were even designed to fire multiple shots with a single pull of the trigger). If you look into it I believe you will find that the term “fixed ammunition” (i.e. self contained cartridge) is a key defining issue. People here in Idaho, and elsewhere, build black powder (read loose powder) cannons that are not “firearms” in the federal sense, so we’re also talking some pretty good sized artillery pieces.
Now for concealed carry purposes, I am told that muzzle loading pistols and cap and ball revolvers are no different, legally, than a regular metalic cartridge gun. Something to keep in mind.
The whole idea of restricting fellons might seem on the surface to be a great idea, but functionally it is a joke in terms of protecting the public. A complete smoke screen. The effect will only be to harrass law abiding citizens in the process of buying guns, with all the paperwork. The actual dangerous criminals will steal them or get them on the black market (or sell them on the black market and make a bunch of money, having what is arguably as government enforced coercive monopoly in contraband sales) same as they can get, or sell, a truckload of pot. Bad guys are always armed, and when you place chilling effects on law abiding citizens that result in fewer of them being armed, you only (only) create more favorable conditions for the criminals. We learned all this back in the 1920s during Prohibition, so I submit that any politician who supports this crap today is either too ignorant to serve, or is in league with organized crime.
The framers of our Constitution understood all of this quite well.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Of course it’s a bad idea. It’s people control. People hate being controlled, it never works right in the end. But I can’t see it become politically viable to counter any time soon, and I’d prefer they fix (for example) one of the other thousands of stupid gun laws (or just get rid of the BATFErs).
But, again, political suicide to change the law. People won’t hear the truth. They can’t believe politicians would do something just to make it harder for law abiding people to buy guns, or increase dealer costs, or to leave a paper trail. They’d rather think that this law actually keeps the guns out of criminal’s hands.