Minnesota court: BB gun is a ‘firearm’

I think he has a good cause for appeal. A firearm is called that because it discharges a projectile by burning powder. There is no burning in an air gun. It is the usual practice when a law does not include a definition of a term, that the normal dictionary definition is to be used in court.

Now had the law defined "firearm" to include an air gun, then that would be the legal definition for the purpose of that law, regardless of the common meaning. (Example: the National Firearms Act includes a silencer (suppressor) in its definition of a "firearm", even though a suppressor itself discharges nothing, and burns nothing.)

Jim

He has a very good chance on appeal since MN law specifically states:

Subd. 2.Pistol. "Pistol" includes a weapon designed to be fired by the use of a single hand and with an overall length less than 26 inches, or having a barrel or barrels of a length less than 18 inches in the case of a shotgun or having a barrel of a length less than 16 inches in the case of a rifle (1) from which may be fired or ejected one or more solid projectiles by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances; or (2) for which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, air or other gas, or vapor.

"Pistol" does not include a device firing or ejecting a shot measuring .18 of an inch, or less, in diameter and commonly known as a "BB gun," a scuba gun, a stud gun or nail gun used in the construction industry or children's pop guns or toys."

Click to expand...

So no, the law does not specifically define a firearm, but it does define pistols, which are subsets of firearms... and specifically exempts BB guns.

Some states like NJ consider a BB gun a firearm. I'm sure there are other states as well. Federally it is not a firearm.

What did Minnesota law say before this ruling? Did Minnesota law originally said that a BB Gun was a firearm? If it didn't (and that seems to be the case) then the courts are in error.

I doubt the State court can make a new law out of thin air by just declaring that a BB Gun is a firearm ...when in fact it wasn't listed as a firearm to begin with in the Minnesota Gun Laws.

If Minnesota wants to enact legislation to change the law to read that a BB is a firearm, that is fine. But how can a court can enact legislation too? What am I missing here?

If a BB gun wasn't a firearm before the court ruled, then how can he be charged with a firearm? How can a court change laws of the state just like that? How can he be prosecuted when it wasn't illegal before? That is illegal...that is ex post facto (making the thing illegal after the fact)!
.

usmarine0352_2005 said:

Per the definition, a BB is not a firearm.



If that was the case everyone who bought a BB gun at a Walmart or whatever store would have to go through a background check. And would it be safe to leave a 14 year old alone with a BB gun?

Click to expand...

As per the Minnesota Court of Appeals, a BB gun is now defined as a firearm. Iffin I remember correctly, one needs to be 18 to buy a BB-Gun at Walmart, just like buying a rimfire or centerfre rifle. In my state and in Minnesota, it's considered not only safe, but legal for a 14 year old to be alone with any long gun firearm. Some of the newer air rifles/pistols are as or even more powerful than many rimfire and some centerfire firearms. I don't think that the definition of a legal firearm for hunting pertains to what a convicted felon can possess legally. Just my 2 cents.

Very sad. But Minnesota gave us wrestler Jesse Ventura and Senator, "Car Trunk Ballot", Al Franken, so all is possible in the land of "Sky Blue Waters"!

This has been the Minnesota interpretation of the law since 1977, according to the court opinion. It's not a new development.

That law, as quoted, is another example of poor writing, and the adding of a change without revising the original wording. It is obvious, at least to me, that the original law did include air guns, at least in the definition of a pistol, but that some lawmaker (probably after some kid was jailed for having a BB gun) added the exception for guns under .18 caliber (i.e, .177) but did not define what is "commonly known as a BB gun" without saying whether it was "fired" by a spring, by compressed air, by CO2, or by all or any of them. The person who wrote that may have had the best intentions (of getting votes) but it leaves a lot to be desired and too much up to the courts to make up their own definitions.

Jim

Frank Ettin said:

Hallelujah! At last a post from someone who has actually read the opinion. And that is correct. According to the opinion there is a body of Minnesota case law going back some 40 years treating BB guns as firearms for a variety of purposes.

There is no substitute for reading and understanding the actual opinion. Folks who try to discuss a case based solely on news articles, and without reading the opinion, are wasting their time. They will always be missing important elements and will be getting things wrong.

Minnesota v. Haywood (Minnesota Court of Appeals, A14-1792, 2015).

Read the opinion and find out.

Click to expand...

After 12 years as a prosecutor and 14 years (and counting) on the bench, if I have learned one thing, it's that It Pays To Read.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Abraham Lincoln


Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin107482.html#ioZROuTtq82vA60F.99

The link to the case does not wotk for me, however another website suggestws that only the federal government may regulate BB guns (based on 15 USC 5001).

After reading the code I am confused as to how the MN court could find as they did, unless the USC was not brought up at all (or I am misreading something in USC).