Dave Markowitz
Member
Question for the practicing attorneys here (I'm an attorney, just not practicing currently.)
There is at least one court decision which holds that a black powder gun, in this case a replica of a Remington cap and ball revolver, is a "firearm." In U.S. v. Green, 515 F.Supp. 517 (D.Md. 1981) the court refused to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, based on its interpretation that the replica is indeed a "firearm" and a "handgun" that he was prohibited from possessing. This was in spite of the BATF's opinion that the replica wasn't a "firearm" that the defandant would be prohibited from possessing.
Could somebody Shepherdize this case and let us know if any other courts have followed this reasoning, or if it's been subsequently overturned?
TIA.
There is at least one court decision which holds that a black powder gun, in this case a replica of a Remington cap and ball revolver, is a "firearm." In U.S. v. Green, 515 F.Supp. 517 (D.Md. 1981) the court refused to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss an indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, based on its interpretation that the replica is indeed a "firearm" and a "handgun" that he was prohibited from possessing. This was in spite of the BATF's opinion that the replica wasn't a "firearm" that the defandant would be prohibited from possessing.
Could somebody Shepherdize this case and let us know if any other courts have followed this reasoning, or if it's been subsequently overturned?
TIA.