BB guns are now Firearms (Minnesota court)

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gunsmith

member
Joined
May 8, 2003
Messages
5,906
Location
Reno, Nevada
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/16223874.htm

Minnesota court rules BB gun is a firearm
BY SHANNON PRATHER
Pioneer Press

A convicted felon barred from carrying a firearm broke the law when he started toting a BB gun, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled.

John Fleming Jr. couldn't legally carry a gun because of two felony assault convictions, so he packed a BB gun instead.

Ramsey County prosecutors decided Fleming was splitting hairs and charged him with unlawful possession of a firearm.

Fleming won when a Ramsey County District judge threw out the charge, ruling the statute doesn't apply to BB guns. But the appeals court ruled prosecutors could again take aim at the two-time felon.

The appellate court reinstated the charge against Fleming, finding that a firearm is "any gun from which a shot or a projectile is discharged by means of explosive, gas or compressed air."

Fleming is accused of carrying a black metal BB gun that discharges a pellet by means of a CO2 cartridge.
 
GOOD question ET

I wonder if it will be appealed further or will Minn children
will be felons for shooting at rats and crows?

Will there now have to background checks?
 
Will there now have to background checks?
Click to expand...
That's going to be an interesting question, because firearms do require the proper background checks. However, federal law stipluates that the only sale laws that may be imposed by lower governments on air guns is a prohibition on sales to minors.
 
I once lived in a city which, by law could cite you for discharging a firearm in city limits for shooting an airgun in your back yard. And that was in TX...
 
In NJ you need a firearms id card to buy a bb or pellet long gun, and a handgun permit to get a bb or pellet handgun. So then if federal law preempts these regs NJ is getting away with breaking the law and has for quite a long time now.
Click to expand...
I believe you'll find that state or local laws may be permissibly more restrictive than federal laws in this area. For example, federal law does not require any sort of firearms ID or FOID to purchase guns yet some states have had these laws on the books for decades.

In any event, it'll be interesting to see how this can of worms gets handled. Would that be a felony charge for buying your 10-y.o. kid a BB gun? Would your kid be prosecuted also for being in possession of a firearm? Will you have to fill out a 4473 at Wal-mart when you buy one? Will a permit be needed for carrying a concealed BB gun? :evil:
 
The last place I'd look for reliable advise about this subject is from a ding-dong reporter employed by a money grubbing news paper.

Show me a State web site that details that law and I might believe that, or part of that, otherwise I call B.S. on the simplicity of a statement of "BB guns are now Firearms (Minnesota court)".
 
IANAL, but it seems that a judicial "finding" might be only relevant to the scope of the issue of convicted felons.

It would also need to be consistent with whatever the operative legislative definition of firearm is.

Interesting bits about NJ & bb guns:

AFAIK, it's perfectly legal for an NJ subject to go out of state, purchase whatever sort of bb gun they want, and bring it into state with them.

The key element is that you may NOT take possession w/in NJ jurisdiction.

With Christmas coming up, some examples are worthwhile:


You bring junior to Granmaw's outside of NJ, and Granmaw gives junior a bb gun. Okeeydokee...though underage posession of what NJ defines to be a firearm is problematic should junior bring it back. 'Twould be better if it were mom or dad's.

Granmaw goes to your place in NJ, and gives junior a bb gun: felony convictions for everyone!
 
IANAL, but it seems that a judicial "finding" might be only relevant to the scope of the issue of convicted felons.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what will happen. They are splitting hairs here. Felons can't have any "guns", but non-4473 guns will be ok for non-felons.

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I really have no problem not allowing a 2 time felon have much at all.
 
the case

The last place I'd look for reliable advise about this subject is from a ding-dong reporter employed by a money grubbing news paper.

Show me a State web site that details that law and I might believe that, or part of that, otherwise I call B.S. on the simplicity of a statement of "BB guns are now Firearms (Minnesota court)".

Here is the pertinent portion of the opinion:

Fleming was charged under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(b), which provides in pertinent part: “The following persons shall not be entitled to possess a pistol or semiautomatic military-style assault weapon or . . . any other firearm: . . . a person who has been convicted of . . . committing . . . a crime of violence.” The operative statutory definition of “pistol” excludes BB guns. Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 2 (2004). But the term “firearm” is not defined within this statutory scheme.
The district court determined that Fleming possessed a “firearm” but dismissed the charge because the applicable statutory definition of “pistol,” id., specifically excludes BB guns. This construction of the statute, however, does not give effect to the phrase “any other firearm” in section 624.713, subdivision 1. Unless the applicable definition of “firearm” also excludes BB guns, the district court’s construction of the statute is erroneous. Thus, we examine the definition of “firearm” to determine whether section 624.713, subdivision 1(b), also excludes BB guns from the provision that prohibits a person convicted of a crime of violence from possessing a firearm.
Because section 624.712, which defines both “pistol” and “semiautomatic military-style assault weapon,” does not define “firearm,” we look to other sources for a definition of the term. We know from the Minnesota Supreme Court’s interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (1974), which defines “dangerous weapon” to include firearms, the term “firearm” should be broadly construed. State v. Seifert, 256 N.W.2d. 87, 88 (Minn. 1977). As in the instant case, at issue in Seifert was whether a BB gun was a firearm. The defendant in Seifert was charged with using a dangerous weapon during the commission of a robbery. Id. Because he possessed a BB gun, the defendant challenged the district court’s finding that he used a “dangerous weapon,” defined by Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6, as “any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded.” Id. The supreme court applied the definition of “firearm” set forth in Minn. Stat. § 97.40, subd. 34 (1974), the game-and-fish law (now codified at Minn. Stat. § 97A.015, subd. 19 (2004)). Id. Under this statutory definition, a firearm is “‘any gun from which a shot or a projectile is discharged by means of explosive, gas, or compressed air.’” Id. (quoting Minn. Stat. § 97.40, subd. 34).
Fleming contends that, because the defendant in Seifert admitted that his accomplice was in possession of a firearm, the supreme court’s use of the game-and-fish definition to determine that the BB gun was a firearm is mere dictum. But we cannot ignore the supreme court’s definition of the term “firearm” simply because it may be considered judicial dictum. See State v. Rainer, 258 Minn. 168, 177, 103 N.W.2d 389, 396 (1960) (stating that judicial dictum is entitled to “much greater weight than mere obiter dictum and should not be lightly disregarded”). The supreme court’s use of section 97.40, subdivision 34, to define “firearm” in Seifert occurred before statutory amendments to section 624.713, subdivision 1, in 1994, which created the statutory language that we now interpret. We presume that the legislature acts with full knowledge of previous statutes and existing caselaw. Pecinovsky v. AMCO Ins. Co., 613 N.W.2d 804, 809 (Minn. App. 2000), review denied (Minn. Sept. 26, 2000). And under our statutory cannons of construction, it is presumed that, when the Minnesota Supreme Court has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same construction to be placed upon such language. Minn. Stat. § 645.17(4) (2004). By choosing not to define “firearm” for purposes of section 624.713, the legislature presumptively adopted the Minnesota Supreme Court’s definition. See State v. Newman, 538 N.W.2d 476, 478 (Minn. App. 1995) (relying on presumptive-adoption theory to use Minn. Stat. § 97.40, subd. 34, to conclude that a BB gun is a “firearm” under the felony drive-by-shooting statute, and noting that “it probably would not matter to the victim of a drive-by-shooting whether the weapon used in the attack was powered by air or by an explosive”), review denied (Minn. Nov. 30, 1995).
It is undisputed that Fleming has been convicted of crimes of violence and that he possessed a black metal Walther PPK/S BB gun, which shoots a pellet by means of a CO2 cartridge. Fleming’s gas-cartridge BB gun falls within the definition of “firearm” applied in Seifert, which includes any gun from which a shot may be discharged by “gas[ ] or compressed air.” Minn. Stat. § 97A.015, subd. 19. Presuming, as we must, that the legislature acted with full knowledge of the then-existing caselaw applying the game-and-fish statutory definition of “firearm,” and giving effect to the entire statutory scheme, we hold that, even though a BB gun is not a “pistol,” Fleming was prohibited from possessing a BB gun under the prohibition in Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1, against possessing a firearm. Thus, the district court erred by dismissing the charge on this ground.
D E C I S I O N
Because the operative definition of “firearm” includes a BB gun, Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1 (2004), which prohibits a person convicted of a crime of violence from possessing a “pistol . . . or any other firearm,” prohibits possession of a BB gun, notwithstanding the exemption of BB gun from the definition of “pistol” set forth in Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd. 2 (2004). We, therefore, reverse the district court’s dismissal of the charge and remand for further proceedings.


full text of opinion:
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/coa/current/opa061170-1212.htm

This is the court of appeals, Minnesota's intermediate level and frequently over-ruled court.

On the other hand, as you can see from the text, Minnesota courts have been including BB guns under the definition of "firearm" for purposes of the dangerous weapon statute for some time.
 
Interestingly, Connecticut considers BB Guns to be "dangerous weapons," and regulates them like tazers, blackjacks, and brass knuckles.

It's a felony here to carry a BB gun outside of your home. :what:
 
Uh. Isn't this the very definition of double jeopardy? "You got acquitted of that charge, but we're going to try you again until we get the result we want."

Or am I missing something?

I mean, yes, the guy's a felon and he doesn't deserve anything, rabble, rabble, rabble. But I fail to see how what the state is doing is legal in the first place, let alone dissecting the charge.
 
Not double jeopardy.

A single act may constitute several crimes, each of which can be tried independently of the other.

It happens a lot in drug cases. A person will be caught with a controlled substance, and then face trials in both state and federal court. It can be quite unfair. :eek:
 
not sure on this question

Uh. Isn't this the very definition of double jeopardy? "You got acquitted of that charge, but we're going to try you again until we get the result we want."

Not sure what you mean - this is all one case:
  • state charges him under felon in possession
  • Defendant challenges the charge in district (trial level) court
  • defendant wins that challenge and the charge is dismissed
  • the state appeals the district court ruling
  • the court of appeals reviews the district court's interpretation of the statute and reverses the district court
  • the case is remanded to the trial court level, (unless the defendant appeals the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court and that Court accepts the appeal)
 
So what's to keep the government from appealing - and therefore harassing, expensing, and tying up in court - someone's case forever, or at least until they get the desired result?

This process is mysterious to me.

Sounds to me, from the text of this article, that the prosecution made up some BS, the judge laughed them out of court, and the sore losers went to cry to the appeals court because they didn't get the conviction like they "should" have. I thought the point of appeals were to re-try cases that had since had evidence or fact changes, were mistried, or a mistrial was suspected. Not for the state to abuse people until the desired result is achieved through dumb luck (or playing musical chairs until they get a judge on 'their' side, as it seems happened).
 
The government can't appeal jury verdicts--only dismissals of charges which are based upon questions of law rather than findings of fact.


So what's to keep the government from appealing - and therefore harassing, expensing, and tying up in court - someone's case forever, or at least until they get the desired result?
Click to expand...
 
Richmond.
Thanks for posting Opinion and Link

El Tejon - awaiting your response and input.
-

We have way too many laws on the books as is.
Giving up liberties in exchange for freedom , which results in more laws , is only a band-aid fix for the feel good bunch - and with legalese such as opinion above makes it easier for us all to be defined as criminals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Minnesota court: BB gun is a ‘firearm’
Replies
11
Views
1K
patmccoy
P
C
  • Locked
Minnesota: "Guns banned from state Supreme Court, Appeals Court"
Replies
3
Views
607
jimpeel
J
U
  • Locked
Decision: Police can search person suspected of carrying illegal firearm for ID
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
CLP
  • Locked
Are BB guns firearms?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Sav .250
S
RealGun
  • Locked
Bogus-gun use rises in real crime in D.C.
Replies
11
Views
662
carebear
C
Back
Top